THE   ROBERT  E.  COWAN  COLLECTION 

I'KKSKMKI)    TO    Till-: 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


C.  P.  HUNTINGTON 

JUNE,   1807. 

Recession  No  &&2^£3     Class  No 


POISON  DROPS  IN  THE  FEDERAL  SENATE. 


THE 


SCHOOL  QUESTION 


FROM    A 


PARENTAL  AND  NON-SECTARIAN  STAND-POINT. 


AN  EPITOME  OF  THE  EDUCATIONAL  VIEWS 


OF 


ZACH.  MONTGOMERY, 


ON  ACCOUNT  OF  WHICH   \  1  1  \\  s  A   STl  HBORN    BUT  FRUITLESS  EFFORT  WAS  MADE 

IN  THK  UNl'l  KD  .s  1   kTES   BBNA1  I.    r<)  PREVENT  HIS  CONFIRMATION 

AS   ASSISTANT    ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 


Compiled   by  himself  from  the   United  States   Census  Reports 
and  from  his  own  -writings. 


THIRD    EDITION, 

WASHINGTON  : 
GIBSON   BROS.,  PRINTERS  AND  BOOKBINDERS. 

1886. 


Virginia's  crime  column  in  1860, 
I  criminal  to  every  6,566. 


In  order  to  prevent  crime  Mas 
sachusetts,  as  early  as  1647,  gave 
the  educational  control  of  chil- 
dren to  the  public,  and  after  over 
200  years  trial,  to  wit,  in  1860, 
she  had  i  native  white  criminal 
to  every  649  people. 


Virginia,  down  to  1-860,  had  al- 
ways left  the  educational  control 
of  children  to  their  fathers  and 
mothers,  and  the  result  was  i 
criminal  to  every  6,566  inhabi- 
tants. 


For  proof  of  similar  results  wherever  the  parental  and  anti- 
parental  systems  have  been  tried  read  this  book.  Herein  will  be 
found  the  record  evidence  which  the  late  Richard  Grant  White,  of 
N.  Y.,  declared — 

k'  Proves  the  case  against  the  public-school  system  as  clearly 
and  undeniably  as  the  truth  of  Newton's  theory  of  gravitation 
is  proved  by  the  calculations  which  enable  astronomers  to  declare 
the  motions  and  weigh  the  substance  of  the  planets."" 
(See  North  American  Review,  Dec.,  1880.) 


Copyright,  188(5,  by  Z.  MONTGOMERY. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Page. 

The  school  question  in  the  United  States  Senate — An  anonymous  and 
libelous  pamphlet  quoted — Demand  for  this  publication — Corres- 
pondence with  Senators  Ingalls  and  Edmunds— Endorsements  by  ex- 
Governor  Burnett  and  Mr.  Richard  Grant  White 1-8 

CHAPTER  II. 

Crime  in  parental  and  anti-parental  school  States  compared 9-20 

CHAPTER  III. 

Another  test — Difference  in  results  between  a  small  and  a  large  dose  of 
anti-parental  education,  when  operating  upon  the  self-same  commu- 
nity  20-29 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Yet  another  test — A  voice  from  the  grave  of  the  suicide — Four  times  as 
many  suicides,  in  proportion  to  population,  where  the  State  con- 
trols education,  as  where  the  parents  control  it — Cause  of  the  differ- 
ence  29~36 

CHAPTER  V. 

Mr.  Wines,  special  agent,  on  the  feaff^l  increase  of  our  insane,  idiotic, 

blind,  and  deaf-mutes — Corresponding  with  growth  of  crime 36-38 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Political  poison  in  the  public-school  books— The  mutilated,  talse,  and 
forged  Webster's  Dictionary  now  in  use  in  our  public  schools  —Every 
leading  political  word  in  the  language  radically  changed — Ten  mil- 
lions of  American  children  forced  to  daily  drink  the  deadly  doctrine 
of  centralization  and  despotism!!! 38-42 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Mistakes  of  Catholics  in  dealing  with  the  school  question — Archbishop 

Hughes'  petition — The  work  entitled  "  Catholics  and  Education  "..42-47 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  Roman  Pontiffs  on  the  parental  rights  of  non-Catholics — The  equal 
rights  of  Catholics,  Protestants,  Jews,  and  Pagans  upheld — Letter 
of  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  O'Connell  to  the  author — Important  Pontifical 
instructions  to  American  bishops  concerning  non-interference,  in 
Catholic  schools,  with  religious  views  of  non-Catholic  pupils 47~5O 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Specification  of  fatal  errors  in  the  New  England  school  system  —  Sir 
William  Blackstone,  Kent,  and  Dr.  Wayland  on  natural  duties  of 
parents — Public-school  system  in  direct  conflict  with  natural  law — 
Difficulties  in  the  way  of  harmony  amongst  friends  of  reform — A 
common  ground  for  all — The  anti-parental  system  dissected  and 
analyzed 50-58 

CHAPTER  X. 

A  voice  from  San  Quentin  — California's  educated  convicts;  all  the 
younger  ones  can  both  read  and  write  —  Two  more  penitentiaries 


iv  Contents. 

Paga 

necessary  in  Massachusetts  —  California  public  schools  the  high- 
road to  the  penitentiary  —  How  the  one  serves  as  a  preparatory- 
department  for  the  other — A  forcible  illustration 58-65 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Can  the  political  State  teach  morals?  —  Impossible  without  teaching 
religion — Nor  can  the  State  teach  religion  without  destroying  re- 
ligious liberty 65-73 

CHAPTER  XII. 

The  Author  interviewed — Not  in  favor  of  Archbishop  Hughes'  plan — 
The  plan  he  favors,  and  how  it  would  work— Danger  to  religious 
liberty  of  non-Catholics  if  such  Catholics  as  endorse  the  present 
public-school  system  ever  get  control  of  the  system 73~77 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

The  great  battle-ground   on  which    the  educational  question  must   be 

fought 77-82 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

A  non-sectarian  platform  of  educational  principles  almost  unanimously 
endorsed  by  those  who  have  studied  it — Publicly  discussed  in  the  city 
of  Oakland  at  a  large  meeting  presided  over  by  State  superintendent  of 
public  instruction  and  endorsed  by  a  majority  vote — Petition  to  Leg- 
islature signed  by  people  of  all  creeds  and  callings — Views  of  Rev. 
Dr.  John  LeConte,  president  of  California  State  University— Views 
of  Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  LeConte,  of  same  University — Views  of  other 
prominent  Protestant  clergymen— Substantial  endorsement  by  Con- 
gregational Council  of  California — Substantial  endorsement  by  Pres- 
byterian Synod  and  by  several  leading  American  Roman  Catholic 
bishops  and  archbishops — Endorsement  by  Cardinal  Manning,  of 
England — Seven  answers  to  a  prize  question — Six  in  favor  of  pa- 
rental control  against  one  in  favor  of  State  control  in  educational 
matters 82-99 

CHAPTER  XV. 

A  vital  question  for  public-school  teachers — Want  of  discipline  not  due 
to  incapacity  of  teachers,  as  charged,  but  to  system  itself — Teachers 
cannot  control  children  when  they  receive  their  authority,  not  from 
the  parent  but  from  the  public— Teachers  at  the  mercy  of  every  pu- 
pil who  has  an  influential  parent — Example  given  by  Gail  Hamilton, 
showing  the  humiliating  position  of  public-school  teachers — Profes- 
sor Carr  on  the  subject — Every  competent  teacher  prefers  to  rely  on 
his  own  merits,  rather  than  on  the  favor  of  politicians,  for  prefer- 
ment  99-1 1 6 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Extract  from  Sacramento  speech  by  the  author — Difference  between  pa- 
rental and  anti-parental  system  in  the  production  of  great  men— The 
charge  of  bigotry  refuted — A  word  about  so-called  "  Liberal  Catho- 
lics " 117-120 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

Henry  George  and  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn — Review  of  Henry  George's 
Progress  and  Poverty — -His  premises  false  and  illogical,  and  his 
doctrines  communistic  and  dangerous,  but  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  principles  of  the  present  public-school  system 120  138 


CHAPTEE  I. 

INTRODUCTORY— THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE— AN 
ANONYMOUS  AND  LIBELLOUS  PAMPHLET  QUOTED  —  DEMAND  FOR  THIS  PUB- 
LICATION—CORRESPONDENCE WITH  SENATORS  INGALLS  AND  EDMUNDS. 

THE  vigorous  and  bitter  fight  made  in  the  United  States  Senate 
against  the  author  during  the  49th  session  of  Congress  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preventing  his  confirmation  as  Assistant  Attorney-General, 
because  of  his  views  on  the  school  question,  seems  to  have  awakened 
a  very  general  desire  in  the  public  mind  to  know  just  what  those 
views  are. 

So  frequent  and  so  urgent  have  been  the  demands  upon  him — by 
letters  and  otherwise — for  information  on  this  subject,  that  he  finally 
determined  to  meet  this  demand  by  republishing  "  DROPS  FROM 
THE  POISON  FOUNTAIN,"  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  certain  other 
articles  of  his  recently  published  in  "  THE  FAMILY'S  DEFENDER." 

This  course  seems  the  more  necessary  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
some  of  those  who  supported  his  appointment  have  been  called 
upon,  and  others  are  liable  to  be  called  upon,  to  justify  their  action 
in  maintaining  in  official  position  a  man  entertaining  such  senti- 
ments upon  this  educational  question  and  kindred  subjects  as  have 
been  charged — and  some  of  t\\em  falsely  charged — upon  the  writer. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  views  attributed  to  him,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered by  those  who  read  the  late  "Senatorial  debates"  that,  during 
the  discussion  of  what  is  known  as  the 

BLAIR   BILL, 

Senator  Ingalls,  of  Kansas,  charged  the  writer  with  having  given 
utterance  to  sentiments  such  as  were  not  only  unpatriotic,  but  ut- 
terly incompatible  both  with  his  duties  as  a  citizen  and  his  oath 
as  an  officer  of  the  Government. 

But  it  will  also  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Ingalls  did  not  tell  the 
Senate  nor  the  public  that  his  only  authority  for  making  these 
charges  was  an  anonymous  pamphlet  published  in  the  city  of  San 
Francisco  in  1873  in  order  to  advance  the  partisan  ends  of  a  most 
intolerant  band  of  anti-Catholic  proscriptionists.  Neither  did  the 
Senator  reveal  the  fact  that  said  publication  was,  at  the  time  of  its 
appearance,  branded  as  false  in  a  published  card  signed  by  more 
than  a  dozen  as  respectable  gentlemen  as  could  be  found  in  said 


2  ^''Poison  Drops"  in  the  .Federal  Senate. 

city.  If  the  Senator  had  only  been  magnanimous  enough,  or  just 
and  truthful  enough,  to  make  known  the  contents  of  said  card — 
which  he  could  easily  have  done — he  would  have  thereby  effectually 
neutralized  the  venom  with  which  his  utterances  went  freighted  to 
the  country. 

Let  the  reader  peruse  the  following  card,  as  originally  published 
in  the  leading  journals  of  San  Francisco,  August  7,  1873,  and  re- 
ptiblished  in  the  N.  T.  Tribune,  July  10,  1885,  and  then  de- 
termine how  much  value  ought  to  be  placed  upon  the  honor,  the 
-veracity,  or  the  moral  worth  of  a  Senator  who,  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  the  contents  of  said  card,  could  stand  up  before 
an  American  Senate,  and  before  the  world,  and  reiterate  as  true 
the  anonymous  calumnies  therein  branded  as  false  by  a  crowd 
of  unimpeachable  witnesses.  But  here  is  the  card,  together  with 
an  introductory  note  to  the  editor  of  the  Tribune: 

[From  New  York   Tribune,  July  loth,  1885.] 

MR.  MONTGOMERY  AND  THE  SCHOOLS. 

NOT  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CERTAIN  WORDS  ATTRIBUTED  TO  HIM. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Tribune : 

SIR  :  A  short  time  since  there  appeared  in  The  Sandusky  (Ohio) 
Register  what  purported  to  be  an  extract  from  an  address  of  mine 
delivered  some  time  ago  before  a  meeting  of  Catholic  Sunday-school 
teachers.  Subsequently  The  Register  stated  editorially  that  the  ex- 
tract was  copied  from  The  Tribune.  Neither  was  the  language 
reported  ever  uttered  nor  the  sentiments  which  it  expressed  ever 
entertained  by  me.  The  extract  referred  to  was  taken  from  an  anony- 
mous and  libellous  pamphlet  published  in  San  Francisco  in  1873. 
Said  pamphlet,  immediately  after  its  appearance,  was  denounced 
as  false  in  a  card  published  in  The  San  Francisco  Call  and  The 
Chronicle,  and  signed  not  only  by  myself,  but  a  dozen  other  well- 
known  gentlemen,  including  the  reporters  of  the  said  two  leading 
daily  newspapers  of  that  city.  The  card,  which  appeared  August  7, 
1873,  was  as  follows  : 

TO  THE  PUBLIC. 

The  undersigned  deems  it  his  duty  to  the  public,  no  less  than  jus- 
tice to  himself,  to  brand  as  false  a  certain  anonymous  pamphlet,  the 
contents  of  which  were  reproduced  in  The  News  Letter  of  July  26. 
The  pamphlet  referred  to  purports  to  contain  u  Remarks  by  the 
Hon.  Zach.  Montgomery  before  the  Roman  Catholic  Sunday-school 
teachers,  July  6,  1873." 

The  pretended  address  falsely  makes  me  say  the  following,  among 


Introductory.  3 

other  silly,  ridiculous,  and  infamous  things,  not  a  word  of  which  is 
true  : 

u  /,  therefore,  relinquish  all  preference  or  desire  of  my  own 
and  obey  the  commands  of  the  high,  political  authority  of  the 
Church. 

k'  Inroads  made  by  the  telegraph,  steamboat,  railroad,  and  the 
printing-press  upon  our  Church  arc  almost  irreparable. 

"  Obey  your  pastor,  and  look  to  him  for  all  your  knowledge, 
both  civil  and  religious. 

"  In  this  country  we  have  Catholic  teachers  in  the  public  schools. 

Thev  should  teach  the  doctrines  of  our  holy  faith.     But  they  are 

prevented  by  the  laws.     Now,  for  the  present,  they  can  whisper 

in  the  ea.-s  of  the  scholars  at  times,  and  tell  them  where  they  can 

obtain  absolution  from  their  sins. 

;'  The  institutions  of  this  country  must  be  made  the  institutions 
of  the  Church,  and  then  our  Sunday-schools  and  the  so-called 
public  schools  will  be  one. 

"  One  of  the  refuges  we  have  is  in  the  miracle  of  the  most  Holy 
Father  at  Rome,  who  will  deliver  us  from  all  harm  and  absolve 
us  if  we  do  our  duty  to  the  last." 

In  fact,  the  whole  pretended  address  is  so  outrageously  garbled  and 
falsified  as  to  be  utterly  unworthy  the  attention  of  any  candid  man. 

Z.  MONTGOMERY. 

We,  the  undersigned,  hereby  certify,  and  if  necessary  will  testify, 
that  we  heard  the  address  of  Hon.  Zach.  Montgomery,  delivered 
July  6,  1873,  to  the  teachers  of  the  Catholic  Sunday-schools  of  San 
Francisco,  and,  after  reading  the  pamphlet  above  alluded  to,  we  pro- 
nounce it  untrue,  as  alleged  in  the  foregoing  card,  which  we  fully 
endorse.  Geo.W.  Smith,  reporter  San  Franciso  Chronicle;  J.  H. 
Delahanty,  reporter  San  Francisco  Call:  A.  A.  Hynes,  P.  Ryan, 
J.  Sullivan,  T.  W.  Toliferro,  J.  H.  N.  Adams,  P.  Malery,  O.  D. 
Kemiiff,  M.  J.  Barer,  T.  J.  Schenbeck,  M.  Lawton,  M.  Connelly. 

For  the  sake  of  righting  a  wrong  which  you  have  unintentionally 
done  the  writer,  will  you  have  the  kindness  to  insert  the  above  card, 
so  that  the  antidote  may  follow  the  poison  ? 

Respectfully,  Z.  MONTGOMERY. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  June  28,  1885. 

EFFECT   OF   THE  CARD   UPON   THE   MINDS   OF   HONEST   SENATORS. 

The  sending  of  a  printed  copy  of  the  above  card  to  each  member 
of  the  Senate  effectually  disposed  of  the  vile  calumny  to  which  it 
referred. 

Its  effect  upon  every  fair-minded  Senator  may  be  gathered  from 
the  following  remarks  of  Senator  Blair  (R.)  of  New  Hampshire, 
made  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  during  the  session  of  March  6th,  and 


OF   THK 

UNIVERSITY 


4  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

reported  in  the  Congressional  Record  of  March  yth,  at  p.   2071, 
as  follows  : 


t< 


Mr.  BLAIR.  During  the  progress  of  the  discussion  upon  the 
"  school  bill,  which  has  just  passed,  a  violent  attack  was  made 
"  upon  Mr.  Zach.  Montgomery,  as  will  be  remembered,  and  I  con- 
"  curred  in  the  sentiments  that  were  expressed  against  him,  assum- 
"  ing  that  the  statements  which  were  read  upon  the  floor  of  the 
"  Senate  represented  truly  his  sentiments.  He  has  since  sent  me 
"  a  disclaimer,  and,  knowing  no  reason  to  believe  him  to  be  other 
"  than  an  honorable  gentleman,  and  being  desirous,  if  I  have  my- 
"  self  done  him  an  injury,  to  repair  that  injury,  I  ask  that  this  state- 
"  ment,  which  he  has  sent  me,  be  printed,  so  that  as  much  publicity 
"  be  given  to  his  justification  as  has  been  to  the  attack  upon  him. 

"Mr.  EDMUNDS.     What  is  the  paper? 

"  Mr.  BLAIR.  It  is  a  paper  which  Mr.  Montgomery  sends  me, 
"  which  was  originally  published  in  the  New  Tork  Tribune,  in 
"  which  he  denies  what  he  alleges  to  have  been  a  misrepresentation 
"  of  his  sentiments  as  expressed  in  1873.  It  is  very  brief,  and  I 
u  think,  injustice  to  the  gentleman,  it  ought  to  be  printed." 

It  further  appears,  from  the .  recorded  proceedings,  that  just  at 
this  juncture  Mr.  Senator  Ingalls  so  shaped  his  tactics  as  to  prevent 
said  card  from  going  upon  the  record. 

This,  of  course,  was  not  surprising,  for  we  all  know  that  "  Sup- 
pressio  veri"  and  "  Expressio  falsi"  are  vipers  of  the  same  brood. 

CORRESPONDENCE  WITH  THE  KANSAS  SENATOR. 

During  the  last  days  of  February,  1886,  in  order  to  meet  boldly 
and  fairly  the  opposition  which  was  being  made  to  the  writer,  either 
because  of  the  views  falsely  attributed  to  him  by  the  aforesaid 
anonymous  publication,  or  because  of  his  real  views  as  expressed 
in  "•  DROPS  FROM  POISON  FOUNTAIN,"  he  sent  a  copy  of  said  last- 
named  pamphlet  to  every  member  of  the  Senate,  including  of  course 
Senator  Ingalls,  of  Kansas.  The  pamphlet  sent  to  said  Senator 
was  accompanied  by  a  brief  note,  requesting  that  honorable  gentle- 
man to  be  good  enough  to  point  out  to  the  writer  the  particular 
expressions  in  said  pamphlet  upon  which  objections  to  his  con- 
firmation were  being  based.  To  this  note  no  answer  was  received 
until  after  the  Senator's  speech  above  referred  to,  in  which  he  took 
for  his  chief  text  the  aforesaid  anonymous  libel.  The  next  day  after 
the  delivery  of  that  speech  he  replied  briefly  to  our  note  ;  and  the 
contents  of  the  Senator's  answer  can  be  gathered  from  our  rejoinder, 
which  ran  as  follows : 


Introductory.  $ 

DEPARTMENT  OF  INTERIOR, 
ASSISTANT  ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S  OFFICE, 

March  5,  1886. 
Hon.  J.  J.  INGALLS. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Yours  of  the  3d  inst.  is  at  hand,  wherein  you 
acknowledge  the  receipt  of  "•  pamphlet  ('Drops  from  Poison 
"  i  Fountain,')  with  request  for  information  as  to  the  particular 
"  expressions  therein  upon  which  objection  to  your  (my)  confir- 
44  mation  was  based,  and  in  reply  would  say,  that  if  you  will  consult 
44  the  Congressional  Record  of  this  date  you  will  find  in  the 
44  remarks  that  I  submitted  upon  the  Blair  Educational  Bill  an 
44  expression  of  opinion  upon  this  subject  which  I  trust  may  be 
"  satisfactory." 

Pursuant  to  your  suggestion  I  have  turned  to  your  speech  referred 
to  bv  you  in  your  letter,  and  I  see  that  you  have  quoted  my  pam- 
phlet somewhat  after  the  style  of  the  man  who  quoted  that  portion  of 
the  Bible  which  says,  4*  there  is  no  God,"  omitting  the  first  part  of 
the  sentence,  which,  if  expressed,  would  have  made  the  quotation 
read,  ifc  The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God." 

I  am  not  a  little  surprised  to  find  that,  in  order  to  make  good 
your  opposition  to  my  confirmation,  you  appear  to  have  thought  it 
incumbent  on  you  not  to  confine  yourself  to  objecting  to  what  I  had 
said  in  my  pamphlet,  but  to  many  things  that  I  never  said  at  any 
time  nor  in  any  place. 

If  the  sentiments  contained  in  the  pamphlet  I  sent  you  had,  in 
your  opinion,  constituted  a  sufficient  objection  to  the  confirmation 
of  my  appointment,  you  could  scarcely  have  thought  it  necessary  to 
supplement  this  objection  by  a  series  of  quotations  from  a  false  and 
anonymous  pamphlet.  Neither  could  you  have  thought  it  nec- 
essary to  so  torture  my  card  as  published  (first  in  San  Francisco, 
Aug.  7,  1 873,  and  afterwards  in  the  N.  T.  Tribune,  July  10,  1885) 
either  into  a  twelve  years'  silence  or  into  a  partial  admission,  on 
my  part,  of  the  infamous  utterances  attributed  to  me,  although  em- 
phatically disproved  by  more  than  a  dozen  unimpeachable  wit- 
nesses, including  two  well-known  newspaper  reporters,  all  of  whom 
were  present  and  heard  what  I  did  say  on  the  occasion  in  question. 

I  am  free  to  admit  that  if  I  had  ever  uttered  or  entertained  the  in- 
famous sentiments  you  and  your  anonymous  author  attribute  to  me, 
I  would  riot  only  be  unfit  to  hold  office,  but  unworthy  the  counte- 
nance of  all  honorable  and  intelligent  people.  If  the  "  No-Popery  " 
cry  is  to  be  the  weapon  with  which  my  enemies  propose  to  fight  me, 
I  trust  that  in  future  it  may  be  an  honest  cry  of,  at  least,  seeming 
truth,  backed  by  as  much  as  one  reputable  name,  and  not  resting 
solely  on  the  false  charges  of  an  anonymous  scribbler. 
Respectfully, 

ZACH.  MONTGOMERY. 


6  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

LETTER  TO  MR.  SENATOR  EDMUNDS. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 
OFFICE  OF  ASSISTANT  ATTORNEY-GENERAL, 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Feb.  27,  1886. 

Hon.  GEO.  H.  EDMUNDS, 

Chairman  Senate  Judiciary  Committee. 

SIR  :  I  have  been  informed  that,  on  account  of  my  real  or  sup- 
posed position  on  the  school  question,  some  objection  has  been 
urged  by  certain  members  of  your  committee  to  the  confirmation 
of  my  appointment  to  the  office  of  Assistant  Attorney-General, 
and  apprehending  that  my  said  position  is  not  properly  under- 
stood by  those  who- make  this  objection,  I  take  the  privilege  of 
presenting  you  with  the  seven  short  propositions  which  embody 
my  views  touching  the  question  referred  to. 

(See  propositions,  Chapter  xiv.) 

Should  any  further  information  on  the  same  subject  be  required, 
I  would  respectfully  refer  you  to  a  little  book  of  my  writing,  enti- 
tled "  POISON  FOUNTAIN,"  and  also  to  a  still  larger  book  and  of 
more  recent  date,  entitled  "  THE  FAMILY'S  DEFENDER,"  both  of 
which  are  in  the  Congressional  Library. 

The  seven  propositions  which  constitute  my  educational  creed 
are  incorporated  in  a  petition  to  the  California  Legislature,  pre- 
pared by  myself,  and  signed  by  many  of  the  leading  thinkers  of 
that  State,  embracing  Catholics,  Protestants,  Jews,  and  non-relig- 
ionists. 

Now,  it  is  evident  that  any  objection  to  the  confirmation  of  my 
appointment  resting  on  the  grounds  stated  must  be  in  consequence 
of  my  adherence  to  some  principle  embodied  in  one  or  more  of 
these  seven  propositions.  I  will,  therefore,  request,  both  as  a  favor 
and  as  an  act  of  justice,  that  the  objecting  members  of  your  com- 
mittee will  be  good  enough  to  point  out  the  particular  proposition 
or  propositions  the  maintaining  of  which,  in  their  opinion,  renders 
me  unlit  to  discharge  the  duties  of  Assistant  Attorney-General. 

I  also  beg  leave  to  request  that  you  will  be  so  good  as  to  notify 
me  of  whatever  objections  may  be  urged  against  my  confirmation, 
and  that  I  may  be  allowed  an  opportunity  to  defend  myself  against 
such  objections.  I  make  this  request  with  full  confidence  that  it 
will  be  granted,  especially  in  view  of  the  following  passage,  which 
I  find  in  your  report  of  the  iSth  instant,  as  published  in  the  Con- 
gressional Record  of  the  I9th,  where  you  say  : 

44  It  is  known  to  every  Senator  that,  so  far  as  the  Senate  has  had 
"to  do  both  with  removals  and  appointments,  it  has  for  a  great 
"  number  of  years  been  its  practice,  when  any  officer  or  person  was 
44  before  it  for  removal  or  appointment,  against  whom  any  serious 
k4  accusation  has  been  made,  which  would,  if  true,  influence  the 
44  action  of  the  Senate  in  the  case,  to  cause  the  person  concerned  to 
44  be  informed  of  the  substance  of  the  complaint  against  him,  and 
44  give  him  an  opportunity  to  defend  himself." 


Introductory.  j 

Confidently  trusting  that  your  honorable  body  will  not  make  my 
case  an  exception  to  this  rule, 

I  remain,  with  great  respect,  your  humble  servant, 

ZACH.  MONTGOMERY. 

A  SECOND  LETTER  TO  SENATOR  EDMUNDS. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 
ASSISTANT  ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S  OFFICE, 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  March  \st,  1886. 

Hon.  GEO.  F.  EDMUNDS. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Enclosed  please  find  a  pamphlet  of  my  production, 
which,  as  I  gather  from  Saturday's  Washington  Star,  expresses  sen- 
timejits  such  as  a  majority  of  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  sup- 
pose to  be  sufficient  proof  of  my  unfitness  for  the  office  of  Assist- 
ant Attorney-General. 

I  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  action  of  the  committee  must  have 
been  based  on  a  mistaken  notion  as  to  the  contents  of  this  pamphlet, 
for  whoever  will  carefully  read  it  must  see  that  its  very  life  and 
soul  and  power,  for  good  or  evil,  lie  in  its  truly  startling  statistics 
of  crime.  These  have  with  great  care  and  at  some  expense  been 
compiled  from  the  United  States  Census  Reports.  In  proof  of  the 
correctness  of  my  figures,  I  beg  leave  to  refer  you  to  the  testimony 
of  the  late  distinguished  Richard  Grant  White,  of  New  York, 
which  you  will  find  in  a  marginal  note  on  page  5  of  the  accom- 
panying pamphlet.  If  for  publishing  these  statistics  at  my  own 
expense  I  deserve  to  be  forever  ostracised  from  office,  then  what  can 
be  said  in  defence  of  those  Hon.  Senators  and  Representatives  who 
originally  enacted  the  law  requiring  these  very  same  statistics  to  be 
gathered  and  printed  at  the  people's  expense  ? 

I  have  no  apology  to  make  for  the  publication  of  this  pamphlet. 
Indeed,  so  important  do  I  regard  the  work  of  making  known  its 
facts  and  figures  to  the  American  people,  that  nothing  but  my  pov- 
erty prevents  me  from  placing  it  gratuitously  in  the  hands  of  every 
man,  woman,  and  school-child  in  the  United  States,  for  I  am 
fully  persuaded  that  a  general  knowledge  of  these  facts  and  figures 
would  result  in  such  a  reformation  in  our  public  educational  system 
as  to  place  it  in  harmony  with  the  God-ordained  relations  between 
parents  and  children.  And  this  is  all  the  reformation  I  ever  desired 
or  advocated.  Be  kind  enough  to  examine  this  pamphlet  and  notify 
me  of  anything  you  may  find  therein  tending  to  prove  my  unfitness 
for  the  office  of  Assistant  Attorney-General,  and  much  oblige, 
Yours,  most  respectfully, 

ZACH.  MONTGOMERY. 

No  answer  to  either  of  the  above  letters  was  ever  received. 

The  pamphlet  referred  to  in  the  last  preceding  letter  was  that  en- 
titled "  DROPS  FROM  THE  POISON  FOUNTAIN,"  and  will  be  found 
incorporated  into  this  little  volume.  It  was  concerning  the  matter 


8  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

contained  in  that  same  pamphlet  that  the  Hon.  Peter  H.  Burnett, 
California's  first  Governor  under  American  rule,  and  one  of  the 
most  eminent  of  her  Supreme  Court  judges,  in  a  letter  addressed  to 
the  author,  said  : 

"  It  is  one  of  the  most  conclusive  arguments  I  have  ever  read 
upon  any  disputed  subject" 

The  late  Mr.  Richard  Grant  White,  of  N.  Y.,  who  professed 
neither  the  religious  nor  political  faith  of  the  author,  but  who  was  a 
gentleman  distinguished  throughout  the  whole  country  for  his 
learning,  ability,  and  great  accuracy  as  a  writer,  published  in  the 
North  American  Review  for  Dec.,  1880,  a  carefully  prepared  arti- 
cle entitled 

u  THE  PUBLIC-SCHOOL  FAILURE." 

The  leading  facts  upon  which  Mr.  White  based  his  article — as  he 
tells  us  himself — were  taken  from  said  pamphlet.  In  a  foot-note  to 
said  article  he  says  : 

"  My  attention  was  directed  to  these  facts  by  a  pamphlet  on  the 
system  of  anti-parental  education,  by  the  Hon.  Zachary  Montgom- 
ery, of  California,  which  I  received  on  the  23d  of  October  last,  after 
the  publication  of  my  articles  on  the  public  schools  in  the  New 
York  Times.  Mr.  Montgomery's  trenchant  pamphlet  contains  very 
elaborate  tables,  made  up  from  the  United  States  census  reports.  1 
have  verified  them  by  those  reports,  and  find  them  essentially  ac- 
curate and  trustworthy." 

As  introductory  to  Mr.  White's  quotations  from  our  tabulated 
statistics,  he  characterizes  them  as 

"  Evidence  which  proves  the  case  against  the  public-school 
system  as  clearly  and  as  undeniably  as  the  truth  of  Newton's 
theory  of  gravitation  is  proved  by  the  calculations  which  enable 
astronomers  to  declare  the  motions  and  weigh  the  substance  of 
the  planets." 

And  yet,  for  the  publication  of  that  evidence,  and  the  drawing 
therefrom  deductions  which  are  as  irresistible  as  that  two  and  two 
make  four,  the  author  has  been  denounced  upon  the  floor  of  an 
American  Senate,  and  throughout  the  country  by  a  certain  class 
of  politicians,  as  if  he  were  unfit  to  live  in  any  civilized  commu- 
nity, and  much  less  fit  to  be  entrusted  with  any  public  office  what- 
ever. And  all  this,  too — be  it  remembered — was  done  in  the  name 
of  education,  civilization,  liberty,  and  progress  !  ! ! 

Let  the  reader  peruse  the  following  pages,  and  then  decide  whether 
it  is  the  author  or  his  accusers  that  deserve  the  anathemas  that  have 
been  heaped  upon  the  head  of  the  former. 


Crime  in  Parental  and  anti- Parental  School  States  Compared.      9 

CHAPTEK  H. 

CRIME  IN  PARENTAL  AND  ANTI-PARENTAL  SCHOOL  STATES  COMPARED. 

THE  writer  intends  to  offer  no  apology  to  the  reading  community 
for  this  publication.  As  soon  would  he  think  of  apologizing  to  the 
slumbering  inhabitants  of  a  city  in  flames  for  attempting  to  disturb 
their  rest  by  the  vigorous  ringing  of  a  fire-bell.  Far  better  that  they 
awake  even  in  anger,  than  to  awake  not  at  all. 

If  the  reader  will  but  follow  us,  even  to  the  extent  of  a  few  pages, 
we  promise  to  demonstrate,  by  incontestable  facts  and  figures  drawn 
from  sources  that  will  not  and  cannot  be  impeached,  that  the  calamity 
at  which  we  are  endeavoring  to  alarm  our  countrymen  is  far  more 
widespread  and  direful  in  its  consequences  than  any  conflagration 
that  ever  devastated  a  city.  We  promise  to  prove  that  our  boasted 
New  England  public-school  system,  as  now  by  law  established 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  American  Republic,  is  a 
poisonous  fountain,  fraught  with  the  seeds  of  human  misery  and 
moral  death.  But,  says  the  reader,  how  can  that  possibly  be  true? 
Can  it  be  denied  that  an  educated  people  are  more-moral  and  virtu- 
ous, more  contented,  happy,  and  law-abiding  than  an  ignorant  peo- 
ple, and  if  so,  how  can  it  be  charged  that  a  system  of  education 
which  almost  entirely  banishes  illiteracy  from  the  land  is  fraught 
with  so  much  evil  to  those  who  are  brought  under  its  influence? 
These  are  candid  questions,  and  they  shall  receive  candid  answers. 
It  is  very  true  that  ignorance  is  the  mother  of  vice.  It  is  also  true 
that  an  educated  people,  if  properly  educated,  are  more  moral, 
virtuous,  contented,  happy,  and  law-abiding  than  an  ignorant  peo- 
pie. 

Thus  far,  we  think  there  can  be  no  difference  of  opinion  between 
the  most  inveterate  supporter  of  the  New  England  public-school 
system  and  ourselves. 

Now,  keeping  steadily  in  view  this  common  stand-point,  namely, 
that  a  people  properly  educated  are  more  moral,  virtuous,  contented, 
happy,  and  law-abiding  than  an  ignorant  people,  let  us  suppose  that 
we  somewhere  find  living,  side  by  side,  two  communities,  one  of 
which  is  made  up  almost  entirely  of  educated  people,  while  the 
other  is  largely  composed  of  illiterate  people ;  and  let  us  further 
suppose  that  amongst  those  considered  educated  you  find  that  in 
proportion  to  their  population  they  have  six  criminals  to  where  the 


IO  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

more  illiterate  community  have  but  one ;  suppose  that  they  have 
nearly  two  paupers  to  where  the  more  illiterate  people  have  but 
one  ;  suppose  that  they  have  two  insane  to  where  the  illiterates  have 
only  one  ;  suppose  that  their  death  list  shows  four  suicides  to  where 
that  of  the  illiterates  shows  but  one  ;  and  suppose  that  the  same  list 
shows  three  deaths  from  the  criminal  indulgence  of  the  brutal  pas- 
sions, while  that  of  the  illiterates  shows  but  two,  what  conclusion 
would  you  arrive  at  with  reference  to  that  kind  of  education  ? 

Adhering  to  the  proposition  with  which  we  set  out  a  moment 
ago,  namely,  that  a  people  properly  educated  are  more  moral,  vir- 
tuous, contented,  happy,  and  law-abiding  than  an  uneducated  peo- 
ple, would  you  not  be  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  there  must  be 
something  wrong,  terribly,  radically  wrong,  in  a  system  of  edu- 
cation so  much  more  direful  in  its  results  than  even  illiteracy  itself? 

But  just  here,  perhaps,  the  reader  will  ask  us,  as  he  has  a  right  to 
ask,  "  what  application  has  your  supposed  case  to  the  question  un- 
der discussion?"  Just  have  a  little  patience,  good  reader,  and  you 
shall  see  the  application. 

For  this  educated  community,  let  us  take  the  native  born-white 
population  of  the  six  New  England  States,  to  wit,  Massachusetts, 
Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island, 
and  for  the  unlettered  community,  we  will  take  the  native-born 
whites  of  the  six  States  of  Virginia,  Maryland,  Delaware,  Georgia, 
North  Carolina,  and  South  Carolina.  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
States  thus  enumerated  are  either  a  part  of  the  original  thirteen,  or 
such  as  have  been  carved  out  therefrom. 

Both  of  these  communities  started  on  their  career  of  existence 
about  the  same  time  ;  both  were  composed  mainly  of  people  from 
the  same  part  of  Europe  ;  people  who  spoke  the  same  language  and 
had  been  accustomed  to  the  same  laws,  manners,  and  usages  ;  peo- 
ple who  possessed  the  same  Christian  religion,  pretty  much  all  of 
whom  (outside  of  little  Maryland)  were  of  the  protestant  faith,  and 
took  as  their  religious  guide  the  same  Bible,  and  even  the  same  trans- 
lation of  that  Bible. 

There  was  one  important  particular,  however,  in  which  these  two 
communities  widely  differed  at  the  very  start,  as  we  shall  presently 
see.  "More  than  two  hundred  years  ago  the  principle  was  incor- 
44  porated  into  the  legislation  of  Massachusetts,  that  the  whole  peo- 
44  pie  must  be  educated  to  a  certain  degree  at  the  public  expense, 
44  irrespective  of  any  social  distinctions."  J 

1  See  work  entitled  "The  Daily  Public  School,"  published  by  J.  B.  Lippincott  in  1866,  p.  121. 
See  Kent's  Commentaries,  vol.  ii,  p.  210. 


Crime  in  Parental  and  anti-  Parental  Sch  w&&c$ba^d  .    1  1 


Again  :  "  In  Massachusetts,  by  statute,  in  1647  each  town  consist- 
44  ing  of  fifty  householders  was  directed  to  maintain  a  school  to  teach 
44  their  children  to  read  and  write,  and  every  town  of  one  hundred 
44  families  was  to  maintain  a  grammar  school  to  fit  youth  for  the  col- 
44  lege.  The  common  schools  of  Massachusetts  have  been  kept  up 
"  to  this  day  by  direct  tax  and  individual  subscription,  and  nowhere 
44  in  a  population  of  equal  extent  has  common  elementary  education 
44  been  more  universally  diffused."1 

"  The  compulsory  system  of  supporting  common  and  grammar 
44  schools  in  each  "town  is  sustained,  to  this  day,  in  Massachusetts, 
44  and  enforced  by  indictment."3 

At  a  very  early  day,  after  their  settlement,  a  similar  system  of  educa- 
tion was  adopted  in  all  the  other  New  England  States,  from  which 
fact  the  system  seems  to  have  taken  the  name  of  44  the  New  England 
4k  system."  Chancellor  .Kent  says  :  "  In  New  England  it  has  been 
*•  a  steady  and  governing  principle  from  the  very  foundation  of  the 
44  colonies,  that  it  was  the  right  and  duty  of  the  government  to  pro- 
44  vide,  by  means  of  fair  and  just  taxation,  for  the  instruction  of  all 
"  the  youth  in  the  elements  of  learning."3 

On  the  other  hand,  the  six  enumerated  States,  comprising  what  we 
have  agreed  to  call  the  unlettered  community,  steadily  resisted  the 
New  England  system  up  to  a  very  recent  date. 

Virginia,  which  occupies  about  the  same  relation  to  the  latter  com- 
munity that  Massachusetts  does  to  the  former,  according  to  Lippin- 
cott's  Gazetteer  of  the  World,  published  in  1856,  had  at  that  time  no 
general  free  school  system,  but  k4  made  an  appropriation  for  the  in- 
struction of  the  poor."4 

Thus  these  two  communities,  the  one  with  its  New  England  pub- 
lic-school system,  and  the  other  without  it,  travelled  along,  side  by 
side,  for  about  two  hundred  years,  until  A.  D.  1860,  when  the  eighth 
United  States  decennial  census  was  taken,  and  the  following  was  the 
showing  of  these  two  communities,  as  will  appear  by  reference  to 
the  annexed  table  No.  i.  We  find  that  at  the  date  referred  to,  to 
wit,  1860,  Massachusetts  and  her  five  New  England  sisters  had 
2,665,945  native-born  white  inhabitants,  and  out  of  these  only  8,543 
adults  who  could  not  read  nor  write,  while  Virginia,  with  her  five  sis- 
ters, numbered  3,  1  8  1,  969  native-born  whites,  of  whom  262,  802  adults 
could  neither  read  nor  write.  So  that  in  the  six  New  England  States 
the  proportion  of  illiterate  native  whites  was  only  one  to  every  312, 

1  See  2  Kent,  210-211. 

2  Commonwealth  vs.  Inhabitants  of  Dedham,  16  Mass.  R.,  p.  141. 

3  See  2  Kent,  210. 

*  SeeLippincott's  "  Gazetteer  of  the  World,"  published  in  1856,  p.  2049. 


12  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

while  Virginia  and  her  five  sisters  counted  one  illiterate  to  every  12. 
But  mark  you  !  How  stand  the  criminal  lists  ?  Massachusetts  and 
her  five  sisters,  out  of  her  native  white  population  of  a  little  more 
than  two  and  a  half  millions,  had  on  the  first  of  June,  1860,  just 
2,459  criminals  in  prison,  while  Virginia  and  her  five  comparatively 
unlettered  companions,  with  a  native  white  population  of  over  three 
millions,  had  but  477  in  prison.  That  is  to  say,  those  educated  un- 
der the  New  England  system  had  one  native-born  white  criminal  to 
every  1,084  native  white  inhabitants,  while  those  who  had  generally 
rejected  that  system  had  but  one  prisoner  to  every  6,670,  being  a  dis- 
proportion, according  to  the  whole  number  of  natives  whites,  of  more 
than  six  criminals  in  New  England  to  one  in  the  other  community.1 
A  glance  at  the  same  table  will  show  that  the  natives  educated  under 
the  New  England  system  had  one  pauper  to  every  178,  while  those 
who  had  managed  to  live  without  that  luxury  had  but  one  pauper  to 
every  345. 

Of  those  who  in  one  year  had  died  by  suicide,  New  England  had 
one  to  every  13,285  of  the  entire  population,  while  Virginia  and  her 
five  sisters  had  but  one  suicide  to  every  56,584,  and  of  those  who 
perished,  the  victims  of  their  criminal  lusts,  New  England  had  one 
to  every  84,737,  while  her  neighbors,  that  had  never  enjoyed  her 
educational  advantages,  had  but  one  such  victim  to  every  128,729. 
We  have  not  before  us  the  list  of  insane  in  the  several  States  for  1860, 
so  we  borrow  from  the  report  furnished  by  the  Census  Marshal  of 
1876,  where  it  appears  that  the  New  England  system  produced  (of 
those  born  and  living  in  their  native  States  respectively)  one  insane 
person  to  every  800  native-born  inhabitants,  while  the  rejection  of 
that  system  resulted  in  one  insane  to  1,682  native  inhabitants.2 

1  Great  care  has  been  taken  to  avoid  mistakes  in  these  computations,  but  should  any  inaccuracy 
be  discovered,  the  author  will  take  it  as  a  favor  to  be  informed  of  the  fact,  so  that  it  may  be  cor- 
rected in  future  editions.    We  omit  fractions. 

2  Since  the  appearance  of  the  first  edition  of  the  "Poison  Fountain,"  Prof.  Samuel  Royce,  in  a 
work  published  in  Boston,  entitled,  "  Deterioration  and  Race  Education,"  although  he  claims  that 
"  the  power  and  wisdom  of  the  State  alone  are  to  be  trusted  with  this  great  work  and  responsi- 
bility "  of  educating  the  young,  nevertheless  admits  on  pages  462-3,  upon  the  authority  of  an  of- 
ficial report,  that  there  is  "  hardly  a  State  or  county  in  the  civilized  world  where  atrocious  and  fla- 
grant crimes  are  so  common  as  in  educated  Massachusetts."    And  on  page  36,  while  referring  to 
the  alarming  increase  of  crime  in  America,  he  says:  "Neither  will  it  answer  to  lay  it  to  the  foreign 
element,  the  criminal  rate  of  which  has  remained  the  same,  or  even  lessened,  while  the  native  crimi- 
nals have  increased  during  1860-1870  from  10,143  to  24,173." 

It  is  sometimes  claimed  that  the  chief  reason  why  the  public-school  States  have  so  large  a  pro- 
portion of  criminals  is  because  of  their  large  cities.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that,  like  every  other 
kind  of  pestilence,  this  poisonous  and  crime-breeding  system  of  education  rages  with  more  terrible 
fury  in  great  cities  than  in  small  villages  or  country  places ;  but  that  its  ravages  are  by  no  means 
confined  to  large  cities  is  abundantly  proved  by  statistics.  For  example :  In  1860  eleven  of  Con- 
necticut's largest  towns  and  cities  did  not  equal  in  population  the  single  city  of  Baltimore,  the 
metropolis  of  Maryland,  and  yet  Maryland  had  but  one  native  white  criminal  to  every  5,276  na- 
tive white  inhabitants ;  while  Connecticut  numbered  one  native  white  criminal  to  every  845  in- 
habitants. At  that  time  Maryland  had  the  public-school  system  in  its  infancy,  while  Connecticut 
had  it  in  its  maturity.  But  only  ten  years  later,  (in  1870,)  when  Maryland's  expenditures  for  pub- 
lic-school purposes  had  swollen  from  $205,319  (the  amount  expended  in  1860)  to  $1,146,057,  her  na- 
tive white  criminals  had  correspondingly  increased  from  one  for  every  5,276  to  one  for  every 
1,717  inhabitants. 


Crime  in  Parental  and  anti- Parental  School  States  Compared.   13 


0333! 

^-^  S  c^ 

Hi 


Pro  portion  be- 
ing- 


Deaths  from  syph- 
ilis. 


illii 
lifii 

«do|s 
I  £  £1  £ 


i«- 


Proportion  of  sui- 
cides being- 


Suicides. 


Proportion  of  pau- 
pers being — 


.ss  • 
' 


Native  paupers  re- 
ceiving  State 
aid,  June  1,1860. 


Proportion    of 


portion    01       »«*««•  wo^ 

iminalsbe-       «««        -H 


ing- 


Na  t  i  v  e  criminals 
in  prison  June 
1st. 


—  S  £      ?       Proportion  of  na- 
3<ai:      E  "       tive     illiterate 


S 


being- 


E5M! 


-i  =  isa 

^Iliil 

|RI! 

Mllti 


Natives  over  21 
years  of  age  who 
can  neither  read 
nor  write. 


22222 


Population,  native 
white. 


9SXSS9 

iiiiis 


Population,  total. 


11  113 

<x>t-      o  5  o 


r-IOJ         Ot- 


Ot-« 
i—  t         i-< 


ii 


X         .H: 


•*"       M  •*         rH  iH  i-l 


S    - 


*  ^!33i" 


^*       S 

-  1 

S 


c*      *     jgesooojoooo 

«        fl        D*"1 


1  1 


:'»  offc'sfsf  I  »' 


||  M  M 

liJWi 


ill!  < 


New 
Ver 
Mas 


i 


;*3 


a^^-i 

a  ^S** 


llfl 


^ 
II  P 

SlL- 
- 


23  13 

S 


lill 


«t; 


Poison  Drops  "  in  the  Federal  Senate. 


SI'i  j 

%  *  £  g  2  w>     o 

M'-ris  i 

1KIJI  I 


°-a 


si|a|j*l] 


S^"^  &o  H* 

nil '111 
?lE3iU  - 

k*!j&N 
l*iilK4 

••hn  fl-a-S-23  °  «- 


dg-sgl-l1 
Sg-a§iU-d- 
I ifflis8 

<fi    S  ha.    »3    fl  -rt  <-H 


Proportion    of 
insane  being  — 


Insane,  born 
and  living  in 
the  State. 


Pro  portion  o  f 
native  white 
paupers  being 


Native  white 
paupers  re- 
ceiving State 
aid  June  1, 
1870. 


Pro  portion  o  f 
native  white 
prisoners  be- 
ing— 


Native    white 
ers  June 


Population,   na- 
tive white. 


Population,  en- 
tire native. 


<oo:occq 


l 


><**< 


O  O5 


s 


H-eft-^^rf* 


l>0  t-        CO 

1^8, 1  81 


New  Hampshii 
Vermont 
Massachusetts 
Connecticut 
Rhode  Island 


O5  rH  TH 
«£)  Ci-l  l 


Crime  in  Parental  and  anti-Parental  School  States  Compared. 

00  O  t—  O         CO  CO  Ci  Oi  GO  i— I  CN  C*  00  O  t*  CO  -X         rHlOrHr-tt-         GO 

Sp?o§      OTcoS^^t-cjr-)          tr«c5oco      ow«t*P      ?o 


15 


Proportion  being 
one  to  every — 


S5! 


'l'si     111 


Deaths  from 
syphilis. 


r-l  rH  00  t- 00         T-l  "*  CO  C» 


Proportion  being 
one  to  every— 


f 


Total  suicides. 


Proportion  being 
one  to  every — 


. . 

i-fi-Tr-ToTi-H  «^  iH  rH  O* 


Native  paupers 
supported  b  y 
the  State,  June 
1st,  1860. 


Proportion  being 
one  to  every — 


_.          ^. 
o<  ift     i-To>  in  t- 


Native  criminals 
in  prison,  June 
1st. 


Proportion  being 
one  to  every— 


Natives  over  21 
years  who  can 
neither  read 
nor  write. 


Population,  na- 
tive white. 


Population,   to- 
tal. 


Ulli 


||8«H 


Eg6    sy3§  !|| 


I 


i6 


"  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 


B-S 


1! 


iH        IM 


3 


r-^c-  «_t 

CO"      IfiT 


prlre 


'0'"  ^  "H~ 


w-     cf 


Crime  in  Parental  and  anti- Parental  School  States  Compared.   1 7 


5 — 1870. 

In  1870,  the  several  States  and  Territories  of  the  United  States,  not  counting 
Mississippi,  Texas,  and  Utah,  supported  183,198  public-school  teachers,  edu- 
cated 6,228,060  public-school  pupils,  at  an  expense  of  $64,030,673.  (See  Com- 
pendium of  Ninth  Census  of  the  U.  S.,  page  488.)  The  following  table  is  com- 
piled from  the  above  source  : 


STATES. 

Total  number  of 
pupils,  male  and 
female,   attend- 
ing the  public 
schools  in  1870. 

Total  income   used 
for  public-school 
purposes. 

Cost    to   every 
pupil,  being— 

67,  203 

$629,  626 

$9  36 

Arkansas       

72,045 

552  461 

7  66 

75,  527 

1  (J27  733 

21  55 

Connecticut     • 

88  449 

1  426  846 

16  13 

Delaware       

16,  835 

127  729 

7  58 

Florida     

10,  132 

76  389 

7  53 

Georgia                 ...         . 

11  150 

175  844 

15  77 

Illinois             

677,  623 

7  810  265 

11  52 

446,  066 

2  063  599 

4  62 

Iowa                     .... 

205  923 

3  245  352 

15  75 

Kansas     

58,030 

660  635 

11  37 

Kentucky 

218  340 

1  150  457 

5  26 

Louisiana          .     .  . 

25  832 

473  707 

18  33 

152  765 

843  435 

5  52 

Maryland  

83,  226 

1  146  057 

13  77 

Massachusetts 

242  145 

3  207  826 

13  24 

Michigan.    ...       . 

254  738 

2  164  489 

8  49 

Minnesota   

103  408 

895  204 

8  65 

Mississippi 

320  313 

3  092  733 

9  65 

Nebraska 

15  052 

182  160 

12  10 

Nevada              .... 

1  856 

81  273 

43  78 

New  Hampshire  

59  408 

403  310 

6  78 

New  Jersey  

80  105 

1  562  573 

19  56 

New  York             

719  igl 

8  912  024 

12  38 

North  Carolina  

41  912 

205  131 

4  89 

Ohio 

737  693 

8  528  145 

11  56 

Oregon.  .        .          

29  822 

139  387 

4  67 

745  734 

7  292  946 

9  77 

Rhode  Island 

27  250 

355  582 

13  04 

South  Carolina  

31  362 

279  723 

8  90 

Tennessee  

82  970 

683  008 

8  23 

Texas  

52  067 

516  702 

9  92 

8  700 

98  770 

11  35 

West  Virginia  .  .. 

101  493 

599  811 

5  90 

337  008 

2  209  384 

6  55 

1 8  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

One  very  noticeable  fact  in  this  connection,  as  shown  by  the  fore- 
going tables,  is  that  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  which  claims  the 
honor  of  being  the  founder  of  the  New  England  system  of  education, 
while  she  had  by  far  the  smallest  porportion  of  illiterate  native-born 
adults  of  any,  even  of  the  New  England  States,  she  had  at  the  same 
time  much  the  largest  proportion  of  -native  white  criminals,  having 
one  criminal  to  every  649  native  white  inhabitants. 

The  nearest  approach  to  her  was  the  showing  made  by  the  State 
of  Connecticut,  where  there  was  one  native  white  criminal  to  every 
845  native  white  inhabitants. 

And  now,  good  reader,  if  you  will  take  the  pains  to  turn  to  the 
sixth  column  of  figures  in  table  three,  which  shows  the  relative  pro- 
portion of  native-born  white  criminals  in  every  State  in  the  Union 
in  1860,  you  will  see  that  Massachusetts  stands  solitary  and  alone  in 
the  grand  and  magnificent  proportions  of  her  criminal  list.  Califor- 
nia at  that  time  came  next  to  her  chosen  model,  having  one  native- 
born  white  criminal  to  every  697  native  whites,  while,  as  above 
stated,  Massachusetts  had  one  to  every  649. 

California  seems  to  have  resolved,  however,  not  to  be  surpassed  in 
her  crime  list  even  by  her  great  exemplar,  for  when  the  next  decen- 
nial census  reports  were  returned,  to  wit,  in  1870,  California  made 
a  showing  of  one  native  white  criminal  to  every  512  native  white  in- 
habitants, thus  carrying  off  the  palm  which  ten  years  before  had 
been  awarded  to  the  old  State  of  Massachusetts. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  facts  and  figures,  is  it  any  wonder  that 
the  Boston  correspondent  of  the  San  Francisco  Morning  Call  tells 
us  "  that  a  large  number  of  public-school  men  have  come  to  the 
"  conclusion  that  the  public-school  system  of  that  city  is  a  failure  P"1 
Or  is  it  surprising  that  another  of  our  leading  dailies,  the  Alta  Califor- 
nia, speaking  editorially  of  the  same  system  as  it  exists  in. this  State, 
calls  it  "  our  anaconda,"  and  declares  that  if  we  are  to  "judge  this 
"  system  by  its  apparent  fruits,  we  shall  have  to  pronounce  it  not 
"  only  a  melancholy  but  a  most  disastrous  failure,  and  that  it  will 
k'  be  idle  to  look  for  the  cause  of  the  general  rowdyism,  idleness,  and 
"  viciousness  of  the  rising  generation  anywhere  but  in  the  training 
,  u  which  it  has  been  receiving  ?"2 

Even  after  the  civil  war,  which  raged  with  such  terrible  fury  over 
the  Southern  and  Southwestern  States  during  the  years  from  1861 
to  1865,  whereby  property  to  the  value  of  thousands  of  millions  of 
dollars  was  destroyed,  a  servile  race  was  emancipated,  and  the  very 

1  See  Morning  Call  of  August  6, 1877.  *  Alta  editorial,  January  31, 1872. 


Crime  in  Parental  and  anti-  Parental  School  States  Compared.    1 9 

foundations  of  the  whole  social  and  political  fabric  upheaved  and 
broken  to  atoms — even  after  all  the  bad  government  which  bad  white 
men  and  bad  black  men  had  succeeded  in  forcing  upon  the  subjugated 
States — still,  when  the  census  reports  for  1870  were  published,  they 
showed  that  neither  their  native  white  criminals  nor  paupers  counted 
in  the  proportion  even  of  so  much  as  one  to  where  those  counted 
two  who  had  been  for  two  hundred  years  subjected  to  the  ravages  of 
the  New  England  public-school  system.  (See  table  No.  2.) 

And  this  precious  system  of  education  is  the  great  boon  for  which 
in  1870  the  American  people  were  paying  to  the  tune  of  $64,030,673, * 
while  at  the  same  time  they  were  grinding  through  this  mill  of  moral 
death  no  less  than  7,628,060  children.  In  order  to  maintain  this 
very  same  system,  California  alone  expended  during  the  last  fiscal 
year  no  less  than  $2,749,729.46,  as  appears  from  the  recently  pub- 
lished biennial  report  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion. 

Indeed,  so  infatuated  has  our  young  State  become  with  this  crime 
and  pauper-breeding  system  of  public  instruction,  that  she  has  made 
it  a  penal  offence  for  the  parent  or  guardian  of  any  child  between 
the  ages  of  8  and  14  years  to  keep  such  child  from  the  public  school, 
even  for  the  sake  of  sending  it  to  a  far  better  private  school  of  his 
own  choice,  and  at  his  own  expense,  unless  he  first  seeks  and  obtains 
the  gracious  permission  of  the  school  directors  so  to  do. 

But  lest  the  reader  should  be  disposed  to  doubt  the  existence  of  so 
tyrannical  a  statute,  here  it  is  as  enacted  by  the  California  Legisla- 
ture on  the  2Sth  day  of  March,  1874: 


.. 


SECTION  i .  K\  erv  parent,  guardian,  or  other  person  in  the  State 
of  California,  having  control  and  charge  of  any  child  or  children  be- 
tween the  ages  of  8  and  14  years,  shall  be  required  to  send  any  such 
child  or  children  to  a  public  school  for  a  period  of  at  least  two-thirds 
of  the  time  during  which  a  public  school  shall  be  taught  in  each  city 
and  county,  or  school  district,  in  each  school  year,  commencing  on 
the  first  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  seventy -four,  at  least  twelve  weeks  of  which  shall  be 
consecutive,  unless  such  child  or  children  are  excused  from  such  at- 
tendance by  the  Board  of  Education  of  the  city,  or  city  and  count}-, 
or  of  the  trustees  of  the  school  district  in  which  such  parents,  guar- 
dians, or  other  persons  reside,  upon  its  being  shown  to  their  satisfac- 
tion that  his  or  her  bodily  or  mental  condition  has  been  such  as  to 
prevent  attendance  at  school,  or  application  to  study  for  the  period 
required,  or  that  the  parents  or  guardians  are  extremely  poor  or  sick, 
or  that  such  child  or  children  are  taught  in  a  private  school  or  at 
home  in  such  branches  as  are  usually  taught  in  the  primary  schools 

1  In  1880  the  amount  was  over  $96,000,000. 


2O  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

of  this  State,  or  have  already  acquired  a  good  knowledge  of  such 
branches  ;  Provided,  In  case  a  public  school  shall  not  be  taught  for 
three  months  during  the  year,  within  one  mile  by  the  nearest  travelled 
road  of  any  person  within  the  school  district,  he  shall  not  be  liable 
to  the  provisions  of  this  act." 

"  SECTION  3.  In  case  any  parent,  guardian,  or  other  person  shall 
fail  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  said  parent,  guardian, 
or  other  person  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall 
be  liable  to  a  fine  of  not  more  then  twenty  dollars  ;  and  for  the  second 
and  each  subsequent  offence,  the  fine  shall  not  be  less  than  twenty 
dollars  nor  more  than  fifty  dollars,  and  the  parent,  guardian,  or  other 
person  so  convicted  shall  pay  all  costs.  Each  such  fine  shall  be 
paid  to  the  clerk  of  the  proper  Board  of  Education  or  of  the  dis- 
trict trustees." 

Thus  it  is  that  the  votaries  of  this  system  have  absolutely  under- 
taken, by  the  most  tyrannical  legislation,  to  strip  every  parent  of  the 
guardianship  of  his  children,  and  to  transfer  their  entire  control  to 
an  irresponsible  Board  of  School  Trustees  ;  so  that  if  these  school 
directors  choose  to  appoint  a  libertine  or  a  harlot  as  the  tutor  of  your 
daughters,  and  at  the  same  time  refuse  their  gracious  permission  for 
you  to  send  them  to  a  private  school  of  your  own  choice,  it  is  with 
fines  or  prison  dungeons  that  the  law  proposes  to  reward  you,  should 
you,  in  obedience  to  the  dictates  of  right,  reason,  and  your  own  con- 
science, seek  to  shield  them  from  the  contaminating  touch  of  a  vile 
teacher.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  vice  flourishes  or  that  virtue  perishes 
under  the  influence  of  such  a  system  ? 


CHAPTEE   III. 

ANOTHER  TEST — DIFFERENCE  IN  RESULTS  BETWEEN  A  SMALL  AND  A  LARGE 
DOSE  OF  ANTI-PARENTAL  EDUCATION  WHEN  OPERATING  UPON  THE  SELF- 
SAME COMMUNITY. 

IN  their  desperate  efforts  to  find  some  plausible  explanation  for 
the  astounding  growth  of  crime  in  the  public-school  States,  in 
excess  of  that  found  in  the  parental-school  districts,  which  will 
vindicate  their  idolized  "  system"  the  advocates  of  State  governed 
schools  have  sometimes  claimed  that  the  difference  between  the 
number  of  convictions  for  crime  in  the  public-school  States  and  the 
number  found  in  the  parental-school  States  is  owing  to  a  variety 
of  local  causes,  entirely  unconnected  with  and  independent  of 


Another  Test.  21 

difference  in  educational  systems.  But  a  complete  refutation  of  this 
assumption  is  found  in  the  following  statistics  of  public-school  edu- 
cation and  crime,  demonstrating  that  in  the  very  same  localities 
every  material  increase  of  expenditures  for  public-school  purposes 
has,  without  a  single  exception,  been  followed  by  a  corresponding 
increase  of  crime.  For  example  : 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

In  1850  the  State  of  Massachusetts  had  a  native  white  population 
of  827,430.  i 

At  that  date  her  public-school  pupils  numbered  176,475,  and  her 
income  for  the  support  of  these  schools  was  $1,006,795,  being  $5.70 
to  each  pupil.2 

With  this  comparatively  limited  expenditure  for  the  maintainance 
of  her  anti-parental  schools,  she  had,  out  of  a  native  population  of 
827,430,  but  653  native-born  criminals,  being  only  one  to  every 
1,267  native  inhabitants. 

This,  comparatively  speaking,  was  a  very  small  number  for  a  pub- 
lic-school State,  though  a  very  large  number  when  compared  with  the 
number  of  criminals  in  any  parental  or  private-school  State. 

But  coming  down  to  1880,  just  thirty  years  later,  we  find  that  her 
income  for  public-school  purposes  had  swollen  to  $4,696,612  for  the 
benefit  of  3 16,630  public-school  pupils,  being  $14. 83  per  pupil,  count- 
ing every  pupil  that  attended  school  at  any  time  during  the  year.  But 
Massachusetts  expended  on  her  schools  during  that  same  year  more 
than  her  income,  to  wit,  the  sum  of  $4,720,951,  being  $20.03  f°r  tne 
pupils  in  average  daily  attendance. 

And  out  of  a  native-born  white  population  of  1,320,897  there  were 
2.070  adult  native  white  convicts,3  being  one  to  every  638  inhabitants 
in  place  of  one  to  every  1,267  as  *n  J^5°i  an<^  *ms  leaves  out  of  the 
count  some  608  juvenile  convicts,  confined  in  various  reformatory  in- 
stitutions. By  including  these,  the  native  white  convicts  of  Massa- 

1  See  "  Compendium  of  Census  for  1870,"  page  534. 

-  This  article  was  written  in  1884,  in  San  Diego,  California,  and  not  having  the  United  States 
Census  Reports  for  1850  before  me,  I  took  from  "  Lippincott's  Gazetteer  of  the  World,"  (old 
txlition,)  both  for  Massachusetts  and  Louisiana,  the  amount  expended  on  their  public  schools 
iu  1850,  and  also  the  number  of  pupils  then  being  educated  in  those  schools. 

The  statistics  (for  1850)  of  the  other  States  are  taken  from  the  "  Compendium  of  the  United 
States  Census  of  1870,"  where  they  are  reproduced  from  the  census  of  1850.  In  this  compen- 
dium the  pupils  both  of  public  and  private  schools  arc  enumerated  together,  as  are  also  the  ag- 
gregate expenditures  for  educational  purposes,  so  that  the  amounts  given,  small  as  they  may 
seem,  even  exceed  the  then  expenditures  for  public  schools. 

Also,  at  least  a  small  portion  of  the  children  enumerated  for  1850,  even  in  the  States  of  Con- 
necticut, New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Maine,  and  Rhode  Island,  were  being  edu- 
cated in  private  schools. 

But  inasmuch  as  there  was  far  more  virtue  in  those  States  in  1850  than  in  1880,  it  is  not  prob- 
able that  the  friends  of  the  system  will  complain  of  a  failure  to  credit  any  of  said  pupils  to  private 
schools.  — EDITOR. 

3  See  "  Compendium  United  States  Census  for  1880,"  pages  332, 1638-39 


22  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

chusetts,  in  1880,  would  amount  to  one  out  of  every  493  native  white 
inhabitants. 

CONNECTICUT. 

Turning  now  to  Connecticut,  "  the  land  of  steady  habits,"  we  find 
an  entirely  similar  condition  of  things.  In  1850  Connecticut  had  in 
her  schools  79,003  pupils,  wilh  an  income  for  school  purposes  of 
$430,826,  being  $5.45  per  pupil.  At  that  time  her  native  popula- 
tion1 numbered  331,560,  of  whom  244  were  convicts,  being  one  to 
every  1,358  native  inhabitants. 

But  in  iS8o2  her  income  for  public  schools  was  $1,441,255,  being 
$12.15  f°r  every  pupil  that  attended  at  any  time  during  the  year; 
or,  counting  only  the  72,725  pupils  in  average  daily  attendance, 
it  would  be  $19.81  per  pupil,  and  out  of  a  native  white  popu- 
lation of  481,060  she  had  432  adult  criminals,  being  one  to  every 
i  ,136,  leaving  out  of  the  count  403  juvenile  convicts,  the  most  damag- 
ing portion  of  the  whole  record,  which,  when  added  to  the  adults, 
makes  835  criminals,  or  one  to  every  576  native  whites.3 

VERMONT. 

Likewise  in  1850  Vermont  had  an  income  for  school  purposes  of 
$246,604  for  the  education  of  100,785  pupils,4  being  $2.44  per  pupil. 
At  that  time  she  had  a  native  population  of  280,055,  °f  whom  only 
64,  or  one  to  every  4,372,  were  criminals.  But  turning  to  the  cen- 
sus report  for  1880,  we  find  her  expending  $452,693  upon  73,237 
pupils,  being  $6.31  per  pupil,  or  counting  only  the  47,206  pupils  in 
average  daily  attendance  and  we  have  $9.58  per  pupil.  And  instead 
of  one  criminal  to  every  4,372  inhabitants,  as  in  1850,  she  had  out 
of  a  native  white  population  of  290,281  just  196  adult  native  con- 
victs, being  one  to  every  1,481  native  whites.  When  to  these  are 
added  134  native  white  juvenile  offenders,  of  whom  she  seems  to 
have  had  none  in  1850,  we  shall  have  an  aggregate  of  330,  or  one 
native  white  criminal  to  every  879  native  whites. 

1  See  "  United  States  Compendium  Census  for  1870,"  page  534.    The  report  before  me  for  1850 
makes  no  separate  classification  of  the  whole  number  of  native  whites  and  native  blacks  in  the 
free  States. — EDITOK. 

2  See  Census  for  1880. 

3  The  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education  in  his  report  for  1881,  pages  686  to  691,  enu- 
merates 71  reformatory  institutions  in  the  United  States.    Only  six  of  these  were  in  existence  in 
1850,  to  wit,  two  in  Massachusetts,  three  in  New  York,  and  one  in  Philadelphia,  so  that  it  is  taken 
for  granted  that  prior  to  that  time  children  in  Connecticut  were  either  less  addicted  to  crime  than 
at  present,  or  else  they  were  sent  to  prison  like  other  criminals,  and  were  consequently  included 
in  the  enumeration  of  criminals. 

4  See  "  Compendium  United  States  Census  Reports  for  1870,"  p.  492. 


Another  Test.  23 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 

New  Hampshire,  in  1850,  expended  on  her  schools,  public  and 
private,  the  sum  of  $221,146  for  the  education  of  81,237  pupils, 
being  $2.72  per  pupil,  and  at  that  time,  out  of  a  native  population 
of  303,^63,  she  had  just  25  native  criminals,  being  one  to  every 
12,142.  But  thirty  years  later  we  find  her  with  an  income  of  $559,- 
133  for  the  use  of  64,670  pupils,  being  $8.64  for  every  pupil  attend- 
ing school  at  any  time  during  the  year,  or  $i  i  .42  per  pupil  if  we 
only  count  the  48,943  in  average  daily  attendance,  and,  presto, 
change,  instead  of  one  native  criminal  to  every  12,142  as  in  1850, 
when  expending  about  one-fourth  as  much  for  each  pupil,  she  has 
out  of  299,995  natives  209  native  white  criminals,  or  one  to  every 
i  ,435  native  white  inhabitants.  If  to  these  be  added  New  Hamp- 
shire's native  white  juvenile  criminals  for  1880,  to  wit,  91,  we  shall 
have  an  aggregate  of  300,  or  one  to  every  999  of  her  native  white 
population. 

MAINE. 

In  1850  Maine's  total  expenditures  for  schools,  public  and  private, 
was  $380,623  for  the  education  of  199,745  pupils,  being  $1.90  per 
pupil,  and  at  that  time,  out  of  a  native  population  of  550,878,  she 
had  but  66  native  criminals,  being  one  to  every  8,346  native  inhabit- 
ants. 

But  in  1880  her  income  for  public  schools  reached  the  sum  of 
$1,074,554,  for  the  use  of  150,811,  being  $7«n  for  every  pupil  that 
attended  school  at  any  time  during  the  year,  or  if  we  count  only  the 
106,760  in  average  daily  attendance  we  shall  have  $10.00  per  pupil  ; 
and  out  of  a  native  white  population  of  588,193  she  had  321  adult 
native  white  criminals,  being  one  to  every  1,832,  and  if  we  add  her* 
112  native  white  juvenile  criminals  we  shall  have  433,  or  one  to  every 


RHODE  ISLAND. 

Rhode  Island,  in  1850,  expended  on  all  her  schools  $136,729  for  the 
benefit  of  24,881  pupils,  being  $5.53  per  pupil,  and  out  of  a  native 
population  of  123,564  she  had  58  criminals,  being  one  to  every  2,130. 
But  in  1880  her  public-school  income  was  $541,810  for  the  benefit 
of  42,489  pupils,  being  $12.74  for  every  pupil  that  attended  school 
at  any  time  during  the  year,  or  if  we  only  count  the  27,453  in  aver- 
age daily  attendance,  we  should  have  $19.73  per  pupil,  and  out  of  a 
native  white  population  of  196,108  she  had  187  native  white  adult 
criminals,  being  one  to  every  1,049  na^ive  white  inhabitants.  Add 


24  ' '  Poison  Drops  "  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

to  these  her  141  native  white  juvenile  offenders,  and  we  have  328,  or 
one  to  every  597. 

This  completes  the  circuit  of  the  six  New  England  States  where 
the  system  originated,  where  it  has  longest  existed,  and  its  results 
have  been  the  most  thoroughly  tested. 

LOUISIANA. 

Of  all  the  States  of  the  Union,  Louisiana,  thirty  years  ago,  was 
the  most  lavish  in  the  expenditures  of  her  money  for  public  or  anti- 
parental  school  purposes.  According  to  "  Lippincott's  Gazetteer  of 
the  World,"  (see  old  edition,  p.  1091,)  Louisiana  had,  in  1850,  664 
public  schools  with  25,046  pupils,  and  $349,679  income  for  public- 
school  purposes.  The  amount  would  be  $13.96  per  pupil  for  every 
child  attending  the  public  schools,  which  was  more  than  double  the 
amount  at  that  time  being  paid  even  by  any  of  the  New  England 
States,  and  the  result  was  already  cropping  out  in  her  criminal  sta- 
tistics, for  during  this  same  year  the  United  States  Census  Reports 
show  that  out  of  a  native  white  population  of  186,577  s^e  nad  24° 
native  criminals,  being  one  to  every  777,  by  far  the  largest  criminal 
record  in  proportion  to  population  at  that  time  to  be  found  anywhere 
in  America,  if  not  in  the  world. 

Still,  in  order  to  prevent  crime,  she  continued  to  increase  her 
expenditures  for  public-school  purposes,  until  in  1870  she  was 
expending  $473,000  on  25,832  pupils,  amounting  to  $18.33  Per 
pupil ;  and  the  result  was,  that  out  of  a  native  white  population  of 
301,450  she  had  460  native  white  criminals,  being  one  to  every 
655  native  white  inhabitants. 

But  coming  down  to  1880,  Louisiana — according  to  the  census 
feports  of  that  year — out  of  a  native  white  population  of  402,177. 
had  but  89  native  white  convicts  in  prison,  being  but  one  to  every 
4,518. 

Lest  some  enthusiastic  admirer  of  our  great  and  glorious  system, 
in  a  desperate  effort  to  find  one  supporting  fact  for  his  tottering 
idol,  should  jump  to  the  conclusion  that  this  great  falling  off  in 
Louisiana's  catalogue  of  criminals,  between  1850  and  1880,  was 
owing  to  her  increased  anti-parental  education  facilities,  let  us 
caution  him  to  first  glance  at  her  educational  statistics  for  that  year. 
From  these  statistics  he  will  learn  that  Louisiana's  public-school 
income  was  but  $498,409  for  the  benefit  of  81,012  public-school 
children,  being  only  $6.15  per  pupil ;  or  counting  only  those  in 
daily  average  attendance,  it  would  be  still  only  $8.93  per  pupil,  in 
lieu  of  the  $18.33  Per  Pupil  m  1870. 


Another  Test.  25 

NEW  YORK. 

In  1850  the  State  of  New  York  had  a  native-born  population  of 
2,436,771.  She  then  had  in  her  schools,  all  told,  727,156  pupils,  at 
an  annual  cost  of  $2,431,247,  or  $3.34  per  pupil.  At  that  time  her 
native-born  criminals  numbered  only  649,  or  one  native-born  crimi- 
nal to  every  3,754  native  inhabitants. 

But  with  the  laudable  purpose  of  lessening  the  tendency  of  her 
people  to  commit  crime,  the  State  government  went  on  year  by  year 
increasing  the  burdens  of  taxation  for  public-school  purposes,  until 
in  1880  her  receipts  for  the  education  of  1,027,938  children  were 
$11,035,511,  being  $10.78  for  every  pupil  that  entered  her  schools 
at  any  time  during  the  year,  and  the  result  was  that,  with  a  native 
white  population  of  3,807,317,  she  had  5,177  native  white  criminals 
in  prison,  being  one  to  every  741  people,  instead  of  one  to  every 
3.754  as  in  1850.  That  is  to  say,  having  increased  her  expenditures 
for  anti-parental  and  godless  schools  a  little  more  than  three  hun- 
dred per  cent,  in  order  to  DECREASE  crime,  she  was  rewarded  by 
an  increase  of  crime  to  the  tune  of  over  Jive  hundred  per  cent. 

What  seems  astonishing  is  that,  in  the  face  of  these  appalling 
facts,  the  demand  for  more  money,  more  money,  still  goes  forth 
from  those  who  have  grown  rich  by  the  ruin  of  the  rising  genera- 
tion. We  shall  here  extract  from  the  report  of  the  United  States 
Commissioner  of  Education  for  1881  (page  71)  the  following  re- 
freshing piece  of  information. 

Referring  to  New  York's  State  Superintendent  as  his  authority, 
the  Commissioner  says  :  * 

"  With  an  increase  of  nearly  21,000  in  the  number  of  youth,  five 
to  twenty-one  years  of  age,  there  was  a  decrease  of  over  10.000  in 
public-school  enrolment,  and  over  13,000  in  average  daily  attend- 
ance. He  thinks  the  schools  increased  in  efficiency  in 

greater  proportion  than  the  attendance  fell  off,  and  that  the  results 
attained  justified  the  expenditure,  which  was  $511,026  greater  than 
the  preceding  year.  *  *  *  The  figures  show  a  smaller  number 
of  public-school  houses,  but  a  greater  estimated  value  of  school  prop- 
erty. 28,000  fewer  volumes  in  district  libraries,  an  average  school 
term  of  one  day  shorter,  fewer  men  and  more  women  teaching,  but 
n  slight  increase  in  their  average  pay." 

Here  is  certainly  some  valuable  food  for  reflection  for  such  as  have 
stomachs  sufficiently  strong  to  digest  it.  From  this  statement  it 
would  appear  that  the  cost  of  public-school  work  in  the  State  of  New 
York  increases  in  an  inverse  ratio  to  the  number  of  pupils  taught, 
while,  as  we  have  seen,  crime  increases  in  direct  proportion  to 
such  cost. 


OF  TH 

UNIVERSITY 


z6  '*  Poison  Drops  "  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

But,  says  the  Superintendent,  u  the  schools  increased  in  efficiency 
in  greater  proportion  than  the  attendance  fell  off."  And  the  only 
evidence  he  furnishes  us  in  corroboration  of  this  statement  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  28,000  volumes  disappeared  from  the  district 
libraries  in  the  short  period  of  one  school  year.  History  tells  us 
that  in  ancient  Sparta  the  most  accomplished  and  highly  honored 
youths  were  those  who  could  steal  without  being  caught.  But  we 
very  much  doubt  if  Sparta's  lads  in  her  palmiest  days  could  have 
purloined  28,000  books  in  so  short  a  time  and  escaped  detection. 

OHIO. 

In  1850  Ohio  had  a  native  population  of  1,757,746,  and  was 
expending  on  502,826  pupils  $1,018,258,  or  $2.02  per  pupil,  and 
at  that  time  she  had  but  102  native-born  criminals,  being  one  native 
criminal  to  every  17,232  people.  But  in  1880  she  was  receiving  from 
the  people  $11,085,315  for  the  public-school  education  of  752,944 
pupils,  being  $14.72  per  pupil,  and  out  of  a  native  white  popu- 
lation of  2,723,582  she  had  1,674  criminals,  being  one  to  every 
1,626,  in  place  of  one  to  every  17,232  as  in  1850.  In  other  words, 
while  Ohio  was  increasing  her  expenditures  upwards  of  sevenfold 
in  order  to  check  crime,  her  criminals  increased  upwards  of  tenfold. 

(See  United  States  Census  Report  for  1880.) 

ILLINOIS. 

Take,  again,  the  State  of  Illinois.  In  1850  that  State  was  expend- 
ing on  130,411  pupils  $403,138,  or  $3.08  per  pupil.  And  out  of 
a  native  population  of  736,149  she  had  164  criminals,  being  one 
to  every  4,488.  But  she  went  on  increasing  her  godless  educa- 
tional fund  until  in  1880  she  was  expending,  on  704,041  children, 
$9.850,011,  being  $13.99  Per  pupil ;  and  out  of  a  native  white  pop- 
ulation of  2,448,172  she  had  2,223  native-born  white  criminals,  or 
one  to  every  1,101.  To  put  the  case  in  words  instead  of  figures, 
it  may  be  stated  thus  : 

In  order  to  prevent  crime  and  thus  protect  the  property,  the  lives, 
the  liberties,  and  the  reputations  of  her  citizens,  Illinois,  in  the  space 
of  thirty  years,  more  than  quadrupled  her  annual  expenditures  per 
capita  for  the  anti-parental  education  of  her  pupils,  and  the  result 
was  that  she  more  than  quadrupled  the  ratio  of  her  native-born 
white  criminals  to  prey  upon  her  people. 

We  cannot,  in  the  short  space  of  one  article,  review  the  history 
of  education  and  crime  in  all  the  States,  but  we  must  not  close  with- 
out a  brief  allusion  to  our  own  California. 


Another  Test.  27 

In  1860  California  had  in  her  public  schools  24,977  pupils,  with 
an  income  for  public-school  purposes  of  $353,096,  being  $14.13 
for  each  pupil.  Her  record  of  crime  amongst  her  native-born 
whites  at  that  time  surpassed  everything  in  the  United  States  except 
that  of  Massachusetts.  She  then  had  out  of  a  native  white  popula- 
tion of  233,466,  some  336  native  white  convicts,  being  one  to  every 
694.  But  in  1880  California  collected  an  income  of  $3,525,520  for 
the  use  of  161,477  PUP^S>  being  $21.83  apiece  for  each  pupil  that 
ever  darkened  the  door  of  a  public-school  house  at  any  time  during 
the  year,  or  $33.20  each  for  the  106,179  in  average  daily  attend- 
ance, and  she  had  a  corresponding  crop  of  adult  native  white 
criminals  of  1,396  out  of  a  native  white  population  of  549,529,  be- 
ing one  to  every  393  of  her  native  white  population.  And  if  to 
these  we  add  her  142  native  white  youths  serving  their  time  in  re- 
formatories, we  shall  have  one  native  white  criminal  to  every  357 
native  white  inhabitants. 

In  conclusion  let  us  take  a  bird's  eye  view  of  this  question  of  anti- 
parental  education  and  crime,  as  it  affected  the  whole  country  at 
the  two  periods  above-named,  to  wit,  in  1850  and  in  1880. 

In  1850,  our  income  in  the  whole  United  States  for  our  public 
and  private  schools  was  $16,162,000.  The  whole  number  of  pupils 
in  both  classes  of  schools  at  that  time  was  3,642,694,  consequently 
our  expenditures  for  educational  purposes  were  $4.40  per  pupil. 
At  that  time  our  native  white  population  numbered  some  17,308,460, 
and  our  native  white  criminals  4,326,  or  one  to  every  4,001  of  the 
native  white  population  (omitting  fractions.) 

But  in  1880  our  public  school  income  alone  reached  the  enormous 
sum  of  $96,857,534,*  being  $9.72  per  pupil  for  each  of  the  9,946,- 
160  pupils  who  at  any  time  during  the  year  entered  a  public-school 
house  ;  or, .counting  only  the  6,276,398  in  average  daily  attendance, 
and  we  have  $15.43  Per  pupil-  And  during  that  year  (1880)  out 
of  a  native  white  population  of  36,843,291  we  had  29,3772  native 
white  criminals,  making  one  criminal  for  every  1,254  inhabitants, 
instead  of  one  to  every  4,001  as  in  1850.  If  to  the  above  number, 
29,377  native  white  adult  convicts,  we  add  the  9,118  native  white 
juvenile  convicts  in  our  seventy-one  reformatory  institutions,  we 
shall  have  38,495,  or  one  to  every  957  native  white  people. 

Should  any  mistake  in  any  of  our  figures  be  discovered,  we  shall 
be  obliged  to  the  person  making  such  discovery  to  inform  us  of  the 


1  This  is  independent  of  expenses  of  State  officers  of  public  instruction,  normal  schools,  col- 
leges, and  schools  for  Indian  children. 

-  The  whole  number  of  native  convicts  as  given  in  the  Census  Reports  for  1880  was  40,338, 
16,961  of  whom  were  colored.  Deducting  these  leaves  the  number  above  given. 


28  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

fact,  as  we  have  no  desire  to  perpetrate  an  injustice,  even  against  as 
great  an  enemy  of  our  race  as  we  believe  our  anti-parental  public- 
school  system  to  be. 

We  here  take  occasion  to  caution  the  reader — as  we  have  done 
before — against  drawing  from  our  figures  or  our  arguments  any  in- 
ference that  we  look  upon  education  as  the  cause  of  crime.  On  the 
contrary,  we  maintain  that  ignorance  is  the  mother  of  vice.  But  it 
is  against  a.  false  system  of  education  that  we  are  leveling  our  bat- 
teries— a  system  that  intrusts  to  politicians  an  authority  over  the 
child  which  can  only  be  properly  wielded  by  its  own  parents. 

In- the  face  of  these  startling  statistics,  is  it  not  high  time  for  those 
who  claim  that  the  present  public-school  system  tends  to  diminish 
crime,  to  point  out  at  least  one  State  or  one  fraction  of  a  State 
where  the  system  has  not  produced  exactly  the  opposite  result  ? 

Our  figures  are  official,  and  if  any  friend  of  our  present  public- 
school  system  will  take  them,  read  them,  study  them,  and  from 
them  or  any  other  reliable  authority  prove  that  the  present  public - 
school  system  tends  to  prevent  crime,  he  will  perform  a  more  stu- 
pendous miracle  than  if  he  should  raise  the  de«d  to  life. 

A  DIALOGUE  WITH  A  MORAL  UNDERSTOOD. 

Madam  JONATHAN,  whose  son,  young  JONATHAN,  lies  at  death's  door  from 
a  tumor,  consults  Dr.  PLAIN  TALK. 

Madam  JONATHAN.  "  Oh,  Dr.,  what  shall  I  do?" 
Dr.  PLAIN  TALK.  "  Well,  madam,  what's  the  matter  now?'' 
Madam  JONATHAN.  "Oh,  Dr.,  my  poor,  poor  boy  Jonathan  Junior  had  a 
mite  of  a  tumor,  the  size  of  a  pea,  you  know,  and  we  called  in  Dr.  PUFFUM- 
BIG,  and  Dr.  PUFFUMBIG  said  :  '  Give  the  boy,  every  day,  an  ounce  of  some 
sort  of  stuff  he  called  '  common  skules,'  just  to  purify  the  blood  and  dry  up 
the  tumor,  you  know.  And  I  gave  it  to  Jonathan  Junior,  and  in  a  week's 
time  the  tumor  was  as  big  as  a  hen's  egg.  And  Dr.  PUFFUMBIG  said,  '  Double 
the  dose  of  common  skules'  And  I  doubled  it.  And  in  another  week  the 
tumor  was  as  big  as  your  head,  Dr.  And  Dr.  PUFFUMBIG  said  it  was  all 
because  I  was  too  pleggy  stingy  with  the  '  common  shules."1  '  Give  him  at 
least  a  pound  of  common  skules  three  times  a  day,'  said  Dr.  PUFFUMBIG.  And, 
fool  like,  I  gave  it,  and  now  that  ugly  tumor  is  as  big  as  a  milk-pail.  Oh, 
Dr.,  what  shall  I  do?" 

Dr.  PLAIN  TALK.  "Well,  madam,  if  it  is  your  desire  to  turn  your  boy 
all  into  tumor  I  must  say  you  have  the  right  doctor,  and  he  has  prescribed 
the  right  treatment.  In  fact,  I  think  you  might  ransack  the  apothecaries  of 
the  infernal  regions  without  finding  anything  better  suited  to  such  a  purpose. 
And,  pray,  what  is  your  own  opinion,  madam?" 

Madam  JONATHAN  (pensively).  "I  guess  it's  a  mighty  nice  thing  for  Dr. 
PUFFUMBIG,  who  sells  his  nasty  stuff  for  $96,000,000  at  a  dash,  but  a  horrid 


Tet  Another  Startling  Test. 


29 


thing  for  iny  poor  Jonathan  Senior  and  Jonathan  Junior,  too,  since  the  one 
has  to  foot  these  monstrous  bills,  while  the  other  is  dying  of  the  tumor  made 
an  awful  sight  worse  by  the  dirty  pizen  of  that  unmitigated  old  quack." 


CHAPTEK  IV. 

YET  ANOTHER    STARTLING  TEST— A  VOICE  FROM   THE  GRAVE    OF  THE    SUICIDE. 

THE  gratuitous  and  utterly  unsupported  assertion  has  sometimes 
been  made  by  the  friends  of  State-controlled  education  that  the  reason 
why  statistics  show  the  largest  list  of  criminals  in  those  localities 
where  the  most  money  has  been  lavished  upon  the  public  schools  is 
because  those  are  the  only  localities  where  the  criminals  are  all,  or 
nearlv  all,  caught  and  convicted  ;  while  in  those  places  where  there 
is  little  or  no  public-school  training  the  criminals  cannot  be  caught. 

Now  it  will  scarcely  be  denied  that  dead  criminals  CAN  be  caught 
even  in  those  States  where  they  have  no  public  schools. 

Then  how  stands  the  record  with  reference  to  this  particular  class 
of  criminals? 

As  we  have  already  seen,  it  was  in  the  early  period  of  their  first 
settlement  in  America  that  the  colonists  of  Massachusetts,  Maine, 
Connecticut,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  and  Rhode  Island  tried  the 
experiment  of  taking  from  the  fathers  and  mothers  the  educational 
control  of  their  own  children  and  entrusting  it  to  the  general  public, 
while  six  other  colonies,  to  wit,  Maryland,  Virginia,  Delaware, 
Georgia,  North  Carolina,  and  South  Carolina  left  this  educational 
control  of  children  in  the  hands  of  parents,  their  natural  guardians. 
With  slight  exceptions,  in  a  few  of  the  last-named  communities, 
(towards  the  close  of  the  period,)  this  experiment  continued  down 
to  1860. 

The  comparative  number  of  suicides  in  these  two  localities,  as 
shown  by  the  United  States  Census  Reports  for  that  year,  was  as 
follows.  (See  tables  ante.) 


WHKRE   THE   STATE   CONTROLLED 
KDUCATION — SUICIDES. 


WHERE   THE  PARENTS  CONTROLLED 
EDUCATION— SUICIDES. 


Maine .2  to  every  19,738 

New  Hampshire 1  to  every  10,518 

Vermont 1  to  every  15,749 

Massachusetts 1  to  every  11,191 

Connecticut 1  to  every  16,433 

Rhode  Island 1  to  every  12,472 

Aggregate 1  to  every  13,285 


Maryland. 1  to  every  49,074 

Virginia 1  to  every  53,210 

Delaware 1  to  every  56,108 

Georgia. 1  to  every  48,058 

North  Carolina 1  to  every  66,074 

South  Carolina 1  to  every  87,963 

1  to  every  56,584 


30  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

An  analysis  of  thes.e  figures  will  show  that  in  every  solitary  in- 
stance where  the  political  State  had  controlled  the  education  and 
training  of  children,  the  ratio  of  suicides  ranged  from  2^0  per  cent, 
to  800  per  cent,  higher  than  where  the  education  and  training  had 
been  left  to  parental  control,  while  the  aggregate  ratio  shows  over 
four  times  as  many  suicides  under  State  education  as  under  parental 
education.  This  enormous  excess  in  the  number  of  suicides  amongst 
people  educated  under  State  control  over  that  found  amongst  those 
educated  under  parental  control  must  have  a  cause,  and  a  cause 
adequate  to  the  effect.  Now, 

WHAT  IS  THE  CAUSE  ? 

In  explanation  of  the  facts  shown  by  the  foregoing  statistics,  we 
maintain  that  there  are  chiefly  two  causes,  both  of  which  are  inti- 
mately connected,  the  one,  in  fact,  springing  from  the  other.  The 
first  cause  which  we  propose  to  consider  is  the  loss  of  parental  au- 
thority and  home  influence  over  children,  through  and  by  means  of 
a  State-controlled  system  of  education.  The  second  cause,  and  one 
which,  as  just  stated,  is  closely  allied  to  the  first,  is  a  neglect  of  moral 
and  religious  education  and  training. 

It  requires  little  argument  to  prove  either  to  the  readers  of  history, 
or  to  the  close  observer  of  current  events,  or  to  any  affectionate  son 
or  daughter,  who  has  grown  to  manhood  or  womanhood  under  the 
guardianship  of  an  intelligent,  affectionate,  and  conscientious  father 
and  mother,  that  parental  influence  is  one  of  the  Almighty's  chief 
agencies  for  promoting  the  purity,  preservation,  and  happiness  of  the 
human  race.  All  history,  all  philosophy,  and  all  poetry  point  to  the 
home  as  the  birthplace  and  nursery  of  virtue,  morality,  patriotism, 
and  religion.  Home  is  the  ever-living  fountain  of  present  joys, 
sweet  memories,  and  cherished  hopes.  Where  is  the  little  lad  or 
lass  whose  heart  does  not  gladden,  whose  eye  does  not  brighten,  and 
whose  pace  does  not  quicken  while  returning  from  field  or  forest  or 
school,  when  nearing  the  loved  spot  which  he  or  she  calls  by  the 
sacred  name  of  home  ?  What  colors  can  paint,  or  what  words  de- 
scribe, the  sweet  pleasures  of  a  truly  happy  home  ? 

What  artist  has  ever  yet  delineated  the  matchless  charms  of  the 
true  conjugal  and  maternal  love  that  beams  in  the  eye,  dimples  the 
cheek,  or  quivers  in  the  voice  of  the  true  wife  and  mother,  radiating, 
illuminating,  and  cheering  the  home  and  sending  sunshine  and 
warmth,  and  life  and  hope  and  happiness  into  the  hearts  and 
souls  of  husband  and  sons  and  daughters  and  friends  ?  Or  where 
on  earth  can  there  be  found  a  truer  picture  of  the  primeval  paradise 


Tet  Another  Startling  Test.  31 

than  in  an  intelligent,  virtuous,  orderly,  affectionate,  united,  and 
happy  family  of  father,  mother,  and  children  ?  He  who  enjoys  such 
a  home,  or  the  cheering  hope  of  such  a  home,  or  even  the  bright 
and  soothing  memory  of  such  a  home,  will  find  therein  an  ever- 
present  talisman,  an  almost  infallible  shield  against  the  horrible 
crime  of  self-destruction.  Who,  in  his  sane  mind  and  sober  senses, 
can  ever  seriously  plot  against  his  own  life,  however  burdensome 
that  life  may  have  become,  when  remembering  that  in  doing  so  he  is 
plotting  against  the  happiness  of  brothers  and  sisters  to  whom  he  is 
bound  by  the  endearing  ties  of  blood  and  ten  thousand  sweet  memo- 
ries ;  against  an  aged  father  and  mother  whom  he  loves,  and  by 
whom  he  is  beloved  with  an  ardor  that  knows  no  cooling ;  against 
the  devoted  and  faithful  wife  of  his  bosom,  and  against  his  own  help- 
less, innocent,  and  confiding  babes? 

These  considerations  are,  however,  in  one  sense,  only  collateral 
barriers  against  the  crime  of  self-murder,  and,  unless  supported  by 
higher  and  stronger  motives,  are  liable  to  be  battered  down  by  the 
surging  billows  of  human  passion,  or  to  be  crushed  by  the  almost 
unbearable  weight  of  worldly  woes. 

But  a  deeper  and  stronger  barrier  against  this  black  and  horrid 
crime  is  found  in  an  educated  conscience. 

In  marshaling  our  proofs  in  support  of  this  proposition,  we  shall 
assert : 

First,  That  man  is  a  rational  creature,  and,  being  rational,  what- 
ever he  does  while  possessed  of  his  reason  he  does  for  a  motive. 
The  motive  may  be  a  good  one  or  it  may  be  a  bad  one,  but  it  is, 
nevertheless,  a  motive. 

Secondly,  Above  all  other  considerations  personal  to  himself,  man 
naturally  hates  misery  and  loves  happiness.  Hence,  whatever  he 
does  or  refuses  to  do  while  in  the  exercise  of  his  reason,  is  done,  or 
refused  to  be  done,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  misery  or  of  finding 
happiness. 

Thirdly.  Men  differ  widely  as  to  their  choice  of  roads  in  the 
pursuit  of  happiness,  as  well  as  in  their  efforts  to  avoid  misery  ; 
and, 

Fourthly.  There  are  chiefly  three  roads  by  which  men  travel  in 
their  pursuit  of  happiness  or  in  their  flight  from  misery,  namely  :  (i) 
The  road  which  leads  to  the  gratification  of  the  animal  appetites, 
and  which  avoids  whatever  tends  to  their  restraint ;  (2)  the  road 
which  leads  to  human  applause  and  worldly  honors,  while  keeping 
at  a  distance  from  whatever  wounds  pride  or  vanity  ;  (3)  the  road 
which  leads  to  truth  and  justice  ;  to  the  triumph  of  God  Almighty's, 


32  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

law ;  to  honors  imperishable ;  and  to  happiness  unmixed  with  pain 
and  as  enduring  as  eternity  itself.  Unlike  the  other  roads,  this 
turns  neither  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left ;  neither  to  shun  that  which 
pains  the  body  or  mortifies  vanity  or  pride.  Its  course  is  ever  up- 
ward and  onward.  The  truly  faithful  traveller  upon  this  road, 
instead  of  repining  at  the  endurance  of  bodily  pain,  the  loss  of  for- 
tune, the  betrayal  of  friends  or  the  malice  of  enemies,  seizes  upon 
those  passing  woes  as  so  many  precious  coins  with  which  to  pur- 
chase imperishable  joys. 

Now,  it  requires  but  a  moment's  reflection  to  enable  us  to  see 
that  a  man's  choice,  as  between  these  three  roads,  must,  in  the  na- 
ture of  things,  depend  very  much  on  his  early  training  and  educa- 
tion. 

Man  has  three  classes  of  faculties,  namely :  the  faculties  of  the 
body,  the  faculties  of  the  mind,  and  the  faculties  of  the  conscience  ; 
and,  undoubtedly,  all  these  three  classes  of  faculties  were  designed 
by  the  Creator  to  be  exercised,  and  to  be  exercised  in  harmony. 
But,  in  order  to  be  exercised  in  harmony,  it  is  necessary,  in  the  na- 
ture of  things,  either  that  the  demands  of  these  three  faculties  be 
always  in  harmony,  or  else,  in  cases  of  conflict,  one  class  of  desires 
must  yield  obedience  to  another  class.  But  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
these  three  classes  of  desires  are  not  always  in  harmony,  for  it  often 
happens  that  one  class  of  desires — as,  for  example,  in  the  case  of  an 
inordinate  desire  for  strong  drink  or  impure  pleasures — are  directly 
at  war  both  with  the  desires  of  the  mind  and  the  conscience,  and  it 
can  scarcely  require  argument  to  prove  that,  in  such  cases  of  con- 
flict, the  desires  of  the  body  ought  to  yield  obedience  to  the  opposing 
desires  of  mind  and  conscience.  But  then,  again,  the  mind  may, 
and  often  does,  in  defiance  of  conscience,  at  the  peril  of  bodily  health 
and  life,  and  even  at  the  hazard  of  disaster  to  itself,  desire  to  circum- 
vent, overreach,  defraud,  and  ruin  others,  and  would,  in  its  vaulting- 
ambition,  go  so  far  as  to  usurp  the  throne  of  God  Himself.  Hence, 
in  all  cases  of  conflict  between  the  unjust  desires  of  mind  and  the 
dictates  of  conscience,  the  conscience  should  rule  supreme.  And, 
unless  conscience  do  rule  supreme,  there  is  no  adequate  barrier  to 
check  the  wrongs  which  the  body  and  mind  may  perpetrate  against 
themselves,  against  each  other,  against  conscience,  or  against  God 
and  society.  Hence,  the  true  welfare,  the  safety  and  the  happiness 
of  every  man's  body,  mind  and  conscience,  as  well  as  the  safety  of 
society,  demand  that  every  man's  conscience  should  reign  supreme 
over  both  his  bodily  appetites  and  his  mental  desires,  aims,  and 
ambitions.  But  all  these  three  classes  of  man's  faculties  need  edu- 


Tet  Another  Startling  Test.  33 

cation,  training,  and  exercise.  The  physical  man  needs  education, 
training,  and  exercise,  not  only  to  give  him  bodily  strength  and 
skill,  but  to  teach  and  accustom  him  to  subject  his  animal  appetites  to 
the  dictates  of  mind  and  conscience.  The  mind  needs  to  be  taught 
and  trained  and  exercised,  not  only  to  strengthen  and  store  it  with 
knowledge  necessary  for  the  proper  direction  and  government  of  the 
body,  and  the  enlightenment  of  itself  and  of  conscience  by  the  lamp 
of  reason,  but  to  accustom  it  to  habits  of  prompt  and  willing  obe- 
dience to  conscience.  And  the  conscience  needs  to  be  educated, 
trained,  and  exercised,  in  order  that  it  may  learn  and  accustom  itself 
to  walk  always  in  the  path  whither  duty  calls  and  to  which  right 
iv:usoii  points,  and  never  to  allow  either  itself  or  its  mind  or  its  body 
to  stray  from  that  path.  But,  while  it  is  true  that  the  entire  man, 
including  body,  mind,  and  conscience,  requires  education,  training, 
and  exercise,  it  is  no  less  true  that  the  conscience,  the  governing  part 
of  man,  most  of  all  requires  this  education,  training,  and  exercise. 
If  an  individual  in  the  private  walks  of  life  makes  a  mistake  for 
the  want  of  proper  education  or  training,  the  evil  consequences  of 
such  a  mistake  are  usually  unfelt  by  the  general  public,  but  if  the 
governor  of  a  State,  or  the  President  of  the  United  States,  for  a 
similar  reason,  make  a  mistake  in  his  official  capacity,  then  the 
whole  country  must  suffer  the  consequences.  So,  likewise,  if,  for 
the  want  of  proper  bodily  training,  a  boy  stumps  his  toe  or  cuts 
his  ringer,  while  his  body  must  endure  a  temporary  pain,  yet  his 
mind  is  not  impaired  nor  his  conscience  tarnished.  So,  if  for  want 
of  mental  education,  the  boy  should  insist  that  the  world  is  flat 
instead  of  round,  or  should  prove  himself  so  deficient  in  a  knowl- 
edge of  figures  as  to  lose  his  situation,  he  might  still  escape  the 
pangs  of  a  guilty  conscience  and  preserve  a  spotless  reputation  for 
integrity.  But  if,  for  the  want  of  a  conscience,  educated,  trained, 
exercised,  and  strengthened  in  habits  of  honesty,  he  should  pocket 
his  employer's  money,  in  obedience  to  the  demands  of  his  animal 
appetite  or  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  vanity,  the  whole  man  would 
sutler.  For  example  :  the  conscience  would  suffer  not  only  from  re- 
morse, but  it  would  suffer  from  being  blunted  and  obscured,  and 
rendered  less  fit  to  perform  its  functions ;  the  mind  would  suffer 
from  anxiety  and  the  fear  of  discovery,  or  from  the  mortification 
of  detection ;  and  the  body  would  suffer  from  the  labor  required 
to  cover  the  tracks  of  guilt,  or  from  being  forced  to  endure  the 
punishment  which  either  the  natural  or  the  human  law,  or  both, 
would  visit  upon  it.  Can  it,  then,  be  denied  that  the  education, 
training,  and  constant  exercise  of  the  conscience  is  of  the  very 


34  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

first  and  greatest  importance  in  giving  direction  and  formation 
to  the  human  character?  Of  course  we  are  now  addressing  our- 

o 

selves  to  those  who  recognize  the  existence  of  the  human  con- 
science as  the  great  director  and  regulator  of  human  motives  and 
human  actions.  Ought,  then,  the  consciences  of  children  to  be 
developed,  instructed,  and  exercised  as  a  part  of  their  education? 
And  ought  this  instruction  and  education  to  go  hand  in  hand  with 
the  education  and  training  of  the  mind  and  body  during  the  hours 
of  school ? 

It  is  maintained  by  multitudes  of  parents  and  many  clergymen, 
while  admitting  that  it  is  necessary  that  the  consciences  of  children 
should  be  educated,  that  this  education  ought  to  be  confined  to  the 
home  circle  and  the  church,  and  that  the  daily  school  should  be 
exclusively  reserved  for  the  education  of  the  mind  and  the  body. 
But  have  we  not  seen  that  the  conscience  must  be  the  governor 
and  supreme  ruler  of  the  entire  man  ;  that  the  conscience  must  be 
taught  the  habit  of  governing,  and  that  both  the  mind  and  body 
must  be  taught  habits  of  prompt  and  willing  obedience?  But  if, 
throughout  the  live-long  day,  the  conscience  is  to  remain  practically 
dormant,  while  the  mind  and  body  are  both  in  the  process  of  active 
development,  what  will  be  the  necessary  result? 

Is  it  not  a  universally  admitted  fact  that  every  human  organ, 
whether  it  be  an  organ  of  the  body,  the  mind,  or  the  conscience,  is 
strengthened  by  exercise  and  weakened  by  disuse?  Then,  how  is 
it  possible  that  the  conscience  can  maintain  its  supremacy  over  the 
mind  and  body  if  it  is  to  be  left  sleeping  or  chained  down  in  mute 
and  motionless  bondage,  while  the  body  and  mind  are  daily  grow- 
ing in  strength,  activity,  and  habits  of  insubordination?  If,  from 
the  cradle  to  the  grave,  there  is  any  one  period  of  life  more  than 
any  other  when  the  conscience  not  only  needs  to  be  trained,  but  to 
be  called  into  active  service,  it  is  during  the  time  spent  at  school. 
It  is  then  that  pride  and  vanity,  and  anger  and  lust,  and  all  the 
other  passions  that  war  against  conscience  are  in  their  most  active 
state  of  development ;  and  if,  instead  of  training  these  growing  pas- 
sions in  habits  of  subjection  to  conscience,  and  instead  of  training 
the  conscience  to  the  habit  of  wielding  its  authority  over  these  pas- 
sions, the  passions,  on  the  contrary,  be  trained  to  lord  it  over  the  con- 
science, what  must  be  the  natural  result?  When  a  child  has  reached 
manhood,  with  passions  fully  developed  and  trained  to  command, 
and  a  conscience  dwarfed  and  enfeebled  by  disuse,  and  trained  to 
habits  of  base  and  cowardly  servitude,  what  power,  short  of  a  miracle, 
can  sufficiently  restore  the  lost  energy  of  such  a  conscience  or  give  it 


Yet  Another  Startling  7>.v/.  35 

the  mastery  over  the  entire  man  ?  But  when  the  conscience  has  lost 
her  sceptre  and  become  the  slave  of  the  mere  animal  or  intellectual 
man,  then  such  a  man  lives  only  for  the  present  life,  and  looks  not 
beyond  the  portals  of  the  grave,  either  in  his  search  for  happiness  or 
in  his  flight  from  pain.  Such  a  man  seeks  happiness,  chiefly,  either 
in  the  gratification  of  his  animal  appetites,  or  in  the  acquisition  of 
wealth,  or  in  the  paths  of  wordly  ambition,  marching  to  the  music 
of  human  applause  and  grasping  at  the  bubble  of  fame.  So  long  as 
an  average  success  continues  to  crown  the  efforts  of  one  of  these 
seekers  after  mere  worldly  happiness,  the  chances  are  that  he  will 
consent  to  live  ;  but  let  disaster  overtake  him,  and  what  then?  If  a 
man  of  wealth,  let  fires,  or  floods,  or  a  touch  of  hard  times  sweep  away 
his  accumulated  millions;  if  an  over-ambitious  man,  let  the  last  lin- 
gering hope  of  political  preferment  be  blasted  ;  or  if  he  be  a  man  en- 
chained in  the  bondage  of  his  unholy  lusts,  let  even  the  crime-steeped 
partner  of  his  debaucheries  frown  cruelly  upon  him,  and  what  as- 
surance have  we  that  he  will  not  cut  short  the  miserable  existence 
that  has  ceased  to  yield  pleasure  and  promises  nothing  but  disap- 
pointment and  pain  ? 

The  man  who  suffers  from  a  raging  tooth-ache  is  not  censured  for 
swallowing  a  small  dose  of  laudanum  in  the  hope  of  putting  him- 
self to  sleep  until  the  period  of  pain  shall  have  passed ;  and  if  death 
were  an  eternal  sleep  and  life  promised  nothing  but  pain,  who  could 
be  censured  if,  to  escape  a  life  of  suffering  or  shame,  he  should  so 
enlarge  his  dose  of  laudanum  as  to  render  his  sleep  perpetual  ? 

Here,  then,  in  our  humble  opinion,  is  the  true  source  of  that 
alarming  growth  of  suicides  so  prevalent  in  the  United  States.  It 
is  found  in  an  educational  system  which  has  broken  down  parental 
authority,  sundered  the  sacred  bonds  of  affection  that  bound  together 
brothers  and  sisters,  parents  and  children,  and  which  has  weakened 
and  almost  obliterated  the  human  conscience. 

It  requires  but  a  moment's  reflection  to  show  that  the  same  causes 
which  lead  to  the  crime  of  suicide  lead  to  every  other  crime  known 
to  the  laws  of  God  or  man.  Both  reason  and  daily  experience  prove 
that  the  man  or  woman  who  has  no  sweet  and  endearing  memories 
of  childhood's  home ;  who  cherishes  no  love  for  father  or  mother  or 
brother  or  sister;  and,  worse  still,  the  man  or  woman  who  believes 
in  no  God,  no  devil,  no  heaven,  no  hell,  can  never  be  trusted.  Such 
a  man  may  reach  the  very  pinnacle  of  wealth  and  fame  and  political 
power ;  he  may  be  flattered  and  praised  and  applauded  by  the  press 
and  the  people  as  the  very  pink  of  patriotism  and  honesty ;  but  let 
the  day  of  trial  of  come ;  let  the  voice  of  duty  call  to  the  right,  while 


36  "  Poison  Drops"  in.  the  Federal  Senate. 

his  ruling  passion  for  guilty  pleasure,  forbidden  wealth,  or  crime 
bought  fame  beckons  to  the  left ;  and  duty  may  call,  and  call,  anc 
call ;  but,  alas  !  it  will  call  in  vain. 


CHAPTEE   V. 


MR.    WINES,    SPECIAL    CENSUS    AGENT,    ON     THE    FEARFUL     INCREASE    OF    OUR 
INSANE,    IDIOTIC,    BLIND,    AND    DEAF-MUTES. 

MR.  FRED.  H.  WINES,  Special  Census  Agent,  in  his  preface  to 
the  statistics  of  crime,  pauperism,  insanity,  etc.,  for  1880,  presents 
the  following  synopsis  of  the  number  of  the  insane,  idiots,  blind,  and 
deaf-mutes  found  in  the  United  States  during  the  years  1880,  1870, 
1860,  and  1850,  respectively,  to  wit: 


CLASS. 

1880. 

1870. 

1860. 

1850. 

Insane  

I 

!          QI      QQ7 

•37    4.-J2 

24.  O4.2 

if  610 

Idiots 

y*'  yy/ 
76  8cK 

2A    C27 

1  8   Q7O 

ic  787 

Blind  

4.8  028 

"ti  3*1 
2O    7  2O 

12    6^8 

97O4 

Deaf-mutes  

?•?  878 

16  20? 

12    821 

o  80^ 

Totals  .  ...     ... 

251  698 

08  4.84. 

68   4.  SI 

CO  QQ4- 

As  remarked  by  the  Agent,  the  total  population  for  each  of  these 
years  was  as  follows,  to  wit : 

"  In  1850  it  was  23, 191, 876;  in  1860,  31,443,321  ;  1111870,38,558,- 
371 ;  and  in  1880  it  was  50,155,783.  In  other  words,  while  the  popu- 
lation has  only  a  little  more  than  doubled  in  thirty  years,  the  number 
of  defective  persons  returned  is  nearly  five  times  as  great  as  it  was 
thirty  years  ago. 

"During the  past  decade  (or since  1870)  the  increase  in  population 
has  been  thirty  per  cent.;  but  the  apparent  increase  in  the  defective 
classes  has  been  a  little  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty-five  percent." 

As  shown  elsewhere,  it  is  also  painfully  apparent  that  our  crimi- 
nals have  increased  almost  in  the  exact  ratio  with  the  increase  of  our 
insane,  idiotic,  and  other  defective  classes. 

In  commenting  on  the  astounding  growth  of  crime,  insanity,  pau- 
perism, etc.,  in  the  United  States  during  the  last  thirty  years,  the 
Special  Agent  says : 


Mr.  Wines,  Special  Census  Agent.  37 

"  The  interest  and  importance  of  the  inquiry  into  the  number  and 
condition  of  the  defective  classes,  and  of  the  criminal  and  pauper 
population,  arises  from  the  fact  that  these  are  burdens  to  be  borne — 
drains  upon  the  vitality  of  the  community.  When  we  consider  the 
growth  of  our  population  and  our  material  resources,  we  are  in 
danger  of  forgetting  that  there  is  another  side  to  the  picture.  It 
is  startling  to  know  that  of  50,000,000  of  inhabitants  over  400,- 
ooo  are  either  insane,  idiots,  deaf-mutes,  or  blind,  or  inmates  of 
prisons,  reformatories,  or  poor-houses.  If  to  these  we  add  the  out- 
door poor  and  the  inmates  of  private  charitable  institutions,  the  num- 
ber will  swell  to  nearly  or  quite  half  a  million,  or  one  per  cent,  of  the 
total  population." 

We  italicize  and  fully  indorse  the  closing  words  of  the  Agent,  in 
which  he  says : 

"  We  cannot  begin  too  soon  or  prosecute  too  vigorously  the  in- 
quiry  into  the  causes  of  the  prevalence  of  these  evils,  which  are 
like  a  canker  at  the  heart  of  all  our  prosperity.  Nothing  can  be 
more  important  than  for  us  to  ascertain,  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment,  the  rate  at  which  they  are  increasing  and  the  means  of 
arresting  their  growth. 

u  The  subject  is  obscure,"  says  the  Agent,  "  but  in  the  study  of 
it  we  may  almost  be  said  to  have  our  Jinger  upon  the  pulse  of  the 
nation" 

While,  as  suggested,  we  fully  indorse  the  said  italicized  words, 
we  are  not  entirely  disposed  to  indorse  the  declaration  that  the  sub- 
ject is  an  "  obscure"  one,  especially  to  those  who  will  carefully  ex- 
amine the  statistics  embodied  in  his  report,  and  study  them  by  the 
light  of  a  few  common-sense  principles. 

If  it  is  true  that  a  child  brought  up  in  the  way  he  should  go  will 
not  depart  from  it  when  he  is  old,  who  will  venture  to  deny  that 
there  has  been  something  radically  wrong  in  the  bringing  up  of  a 
generation  which  so  readily  and  so  rapidly  betakes  itself  to  the  paths 
of  crime,  or  which,  either  ignorantly  or  otherwise,  brings  upon  itself 
the  constantly  increasing  maladies  of  idiocy,  insanity,  and  kindred 
evils  ? 

In  1880  our  public-school  property  was  valued  at  $211,411,540. 
Our  receipts  during  that  one  year  for  public-school  purposes  reached 
the  enormous  sum  of  $96,857.534.  There  were  gathered  into  our 
public  schools  9,946,160  children,  and  out  of  our  public-school  treas- 
ury we  were  paying  $55,745,029,  in  the  way  of  salaries,  to  some 
236,019  public-school  teachers,  in  order  to  prevent  crime  and  save 
the  expenses  of  paying  peace-officers  and  building  city  prisons, 
county  jails,  and  State  penitentiaries.  And  behold  the  result !  ! 

Our  towns  and  cities  swarm  with  policemen  ;  our  prisons,  work- 


38  u  Poison  Drops"  i?/  the  Federal  Senate, 

houses,  and  reformatories  are  crowded  almost  to  suffocation  with 
impecunious  thieves,  robbers,  and  cut-throats,  while  gilded  crime 
goes  unpunished,  and  moneyed  malefactors  without  number  strut 
our  streets  with  heads  erect,  spit  upon  the  law,  laugh  justice  to 
scorn,  and  fatten  upon  their  ill-gotten  millions,  while  multitudes 
of  their  wronged  and  ruined  victims  are  lodged  in  almshouses  and 
lunatic  asylums,  or  seek  refuge  from  so  sad  a  fate  in  the  still  more 
horrid  doom  of  self-destruction. 


CHAPTEK  VI. 

POLITICAL  POISON  IN  THE  PUBLIC-SCHOOL  BOOKS —TEN  MILLIONS  OF  AMER- 
ICAN CHILDREN  FORCED  TO  DRINK  DAILY  THE  DEADLY  DOCTRINE  OF 
CENTRALIZATION  AND  DESPOTISM  !  !  ! 

From  a  Speech  by  the  Author,  delivered  at  San  Diego,  CaL,  Oct.  30, 1884. 

IN  our  California  public  schools,  as  in  those  of  most  of  the  other 
States,  Webster's  Dictionary  is  the  legally  established  authority  for 
the  definition  of  words.  This  would  all  be  well  enough  if  the 
Webster  of  to-day  were  the  Webster  of  twenty-five  years  ago.  But 
the  illustrious  and  patriotic  Noah  Webster  would  blush  in  his  grave 
at  the  thought  of  being  made  to  father  the  bastard  brood  of  political 
heresies  which  are  now  being  taught  in  our  public  schools,  through 
the  medium  of  a  false,  forged,  and  mutilated  dictionary  bearing  his 
honored  name. 

To  show  how  the  overthrow  of  constitutional  liberty  and  the 
inestimable  right  of  democratic  self-government  are  being  brought 
about  by  changing  the  meaning  of  words,  a  few  examples  will 
suffice. 

Take  for  example  the  word  "  Constitution."  "  Webster's  Una- 
bridged Dictionary,"  as  published  in  1859,  *n  g*vm£  ^e  legal  defi- 
nition of  the  word  "  Constitution,"  says : 

"•  In  free  States  the  Constitution  is  paramozint  to  the  statutes 
or  laws  enacted  by  the  Legislature,  limiting  and  controlling  its 
power;  and  in  the  United  States  the  Legislature  is  created  and 
its  powers  designated  by  the  Constitution*1 

But  every  word  of  the  above  definition  is  expunged  from  the 
Webster  now  used  and  required  by  law  to  be  used  in  our  public 
schools,  and  in  its  place  we  find  the  following  definition  of  the  word 
"  Constitution,"  to  wit: 


Political  Poison  in  the  Public- School  Books.  39 

"  The  principal  or  fundamental  laws  which  govern  a  State  or 
other  organized  body  of  men*  and  are  embodied  in  written  docu- 
ments or  implied  in  the  institutions  or  usages  of  the  country  or 
society." 

Thus,  under  public-school  tuition,  the  rising  generation  no  longer 
look  upon  the  written  Constitution  as  the  source  and  limit  of  legis- 
lative power;  but  on  the  contrary  the  mere  "  usages  of  society" 
are  raised  to  the  dignity  of  constitutional  law. 

What  a  very  convenient  way  of  clothing  official  villainy  in  the 
garb  of  constitutional  authority  !  After  our  corrupt  and  perjured 
officials  have  violated,  in  a  hundred  ways,  the  Constitution  they 
had  solemnly  sworn  to  support  in  order  to  carry  out  their  nefarious 
schemes  of  fraud  and  plunder,  how  would  it  have  been  possible 
for  them  to  have  contrived  a  more  ingenious  device  to  justify  in  the 
eyes  of  the  rising  generation  their  official  misdeeds,  than  by  thus 
adopting,  legalizing,  and  forcing  into  the  public  school,  through 
their  willing  tools,  a  definition  of  the  word  "Constitution"  suffi- 
ciently elastic  to  cover  every  species  of  their  accustomed  rascalities? 

Again  !  The  old  Noah  Webster  of  twenty-five  years  ago,  in  giving 
to  the  word  "  Union"  its  political  signification,  defines  it  as 
"  STATES  UNITED.  THUS  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  ARE 

SOMETIMES  CALLED  THE  UNION." 

But  in  the  false  and  mutilated  Webster  which  the  public-school 
system  now  forces  our  children  to  study  this  definition  is  entirely 
suppressed,  and  in  its  place  we  have  the  word  "UNION"  defined 
as  meaning — 

"A  CONSOLIDATED  BODY,  AS  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

ARE  OFTEN  CALLED  THE  '  UNION.'  "  Thus,  while  the  real  statesmen 
of  both  political  parties  are  warning  the  people  against  the  danger 
of  a  consolidated  government,  the  children,  who  are  soon  to  take  the 
places  of  these  statesmen,  through  our  public-school  machinery  are 
indoctrinated  with  the  idea  that  we  already  have  a  consolidated 
republic.  In  the  case  of  McCollough  vs.  The  State  of  Maryland, 
Chief-Justice  Marshall,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
said:  "No  political  dreamer  was  ever  wild  enough  to  think  of 
breaking  down  the  lines  which  separate  the  States  and  of  compound- 
ing the  American  people  into  a  solid  mass." 

But  what  no  political  dreamer  was  ever  wild  enough  to  think  of 
in  Judge  Marshall's  time  is  now  taught  as  an  accomplished  fact. 

Again,  "  Webster's  Dictionary"  twenty-five  years  ago  defined  the 
word  u  Federal  "  as — 

"  CONSISTING  IN  A  COMPACT  BETWEEN  PARTIES,  PARTICULARLY 


40  kt  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

AND  CHIEFLY  BETWEEN  STATES  AND  NATIONS  FORMED  ON  ALLI- 
ANCE BY  CONTRACT  OR  MUTUAL  AGREEMENT,  AS  A  FEDERAL  GoV- 
ERNMENT,  SUCH  AS  THAT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES."  But  the 

present  public-school  Webster,  after  expunging  every  syllable  of 
this  definition,  defines  "  Federal  "  as  being  u  specifically  composed 
of  States,  and  which  retain  only  a  subordinate  and  limited  sover- 
eignty, as  the  Union  of  the  United  States  and  the  Sonderbund  of 
Switzerland." 

A  moment's  reflection  will  show  that  under  such  a  definition  of 
the  word  "Federal,"  the  several  States  composing  the  American 
Union  would  have  no  rights  and  no  sovereignty  which  the  General 
Government  would  be  bound  to  respect. 

Now  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  in  all  those  matters  in  which, 
under  the  Constitution,  the  Federal  Government  has  been  clothed 
with  sovereign  authority,  the  authority  of  the  States  is  subordinate 
to  the  Federal  Government.  But  in  all  things  else  the  sovereignty 
of  the  States  is  as  supreme  and  as  independent  of  the  Federal  sov- 
ereignty as  if  the  Federal  sovereignty  had  never  existed. 

In  the  celebrated  Dred  Scott  case  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  said  : 

"  The  principles  upon  which  our  Governments  rest,  and  upon 
which  alone  they  continue  to  exist,  is  the  union  of  States,  sovereign 
and  independent  within  their  own  limits,  in  their  internal  and 
domestic  concerns." 

But  if,  as  now  taught  in  the  public  schools  of  California  and  else- 
where, the  States  have  no  sovereignty  except  such  as  is  subordinate 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States,  what  becomes  of  our  sover- 
eign right  to  local  self-government?  Suppose  that  the  Federal 
Government  should  to-morrow,  in  the  exercise  of  its  supposed  supe- 
rior sovereignty,  undertake  to  nullify  our  State  Constitution  and 
laws,  abrogate  our  State  Government,  remove  from  office  our 
Governor,  abolish  our  State  Courts  and  our  legislature,  and  force 
us  to  accept  for  our  local  government  just  such  laws  as  the  Federal 
Congress  might  choose  to  give  us,  such  State,  county,  and  municipal 
officers  as  the  President  might  send  to  rule  over  us,  what  remedy 
would  we  have  ?  Shall  I  be  told  that  such  action  on  the  part  of  the 
Federal  Government,  clashing,  as  it  would,  with  the  principles  of 
State  sovereignty,  would  not  be  tolerated  ? 

But  I  would  answer,  if  a  State  possesses  no  sovereignty  except 
such  as  is  subordinate  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, would  not  our  subordinate  sovereignty  be  forced  to  yield  to 
the  superior  sovereignty  to  which  it  is  subordinate?  Is  it  not  a  law 


Political  Poison  in  the  PtibFb$rS£feo9£=£.ooks.dr  41 

of  nature  that  whenever  two  unequal  forces  meet,  the  inferior  must 
yield  to  the  superior? 

My  countrymen,  disguise  the  fact  as  we  may,  there  is  in  this 
country  to-day,  and  in  both  the  political  parties,  an  element  which 
is  ripe  for  a  centralized  despotism.  There  are  men  and  corporations 
of  vast  wealth,  whose  iron  grasp  spans  this  whole  continent,  and 
who  find  it  more  difficult  and  more  expensive  to  corrupt  thirty  odd 
State  Legislatures  than  one  Federal  Congress.  It  was  said  of  Nero 
of  old  that  he  wished  the  Roman  people  had  but  one  head,  so  that 
he  might  cut  it  off  at  a  single  blow.  And  so  it  is  with  those 
moneyed  kings  who  would  rule  this  country  through  bribery,  fraud, 
and  intimidation. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how,  with  all  the  powers  of  government  centered 
at  Washington  in  one  Federal  head,  they  could  at  a  single  stroke  put 
an  end  to  American  liberty. 

But  they  well  understand  that  before  striking  this  blow  the  minds 
of  the  people  must  be  prepared  to  receive  it.  And  what  surer  or  safer 
preparation  could  possibly  be  made  than  is  now  being  made,  by  in- 
doctrinating the  minds  of  the  rising  generation  with  the  idea  that  ours 
is  already  a  consolidated  government ;  that  the  States  of  the  Union 
have  no  sovereignty  which  is  not  subordinate  to  the  will  and  pleasure 
of  the  Federal  head,  and  that  our  Constitution  is  the  mere  creature  of 
custom,  and  may  therefore  be  legally  altered  or  abolished  by  custom  ? 

Such  are  a  few  of  the  pernicious  and  poisonous  doctrines  which 
ten  millions  of  American  children  are  to-day  drinking  in  with  the 
very  definitions  of  the  words  they  are  compelled  to  study.  And  yet 
the  man  who  dares  to  utter  a  word  of  warning  of  the  approaching 
danger  is  stigmatized  as  an  enemy  to  education  and  unfit  to  be  men- 
tioned as  a  candidate  for  the  humblest  office. 

Be  it  so.  Viewing  this  great  question  as  I  do,  not  for  all  the  offices 
in  the  gift  of  the  American  people  would  I  shrink  from  an  open 
and  candid  avowal  of  my  sentiments.  If  I  have  learned  anything 
from  the  reading  of  history,  it  is  that  the  man  who,  in  violation  of  great 
principles,  toils  for  temporary  fame,  purchases  for  himself  either  total 
oblivion  or  eternal  infamy,  while  he  who  temporarily  goes  down 
battling  for  right  principles  always  deserves,  and  generally  secures, 
the  gratitude  of  succeeding  ages,  and  will  carry  with  him  the  sustain- 
ing solace  of  a  clean  conscience,  more  precious  than  all  the  offices 
and  honors  in  the  gift  of  man. 

History  tells  us  that  Aristides  was  voted  into  banishment  because 
he  was  just.  Yet  who  would  not  a  thousand  times  rather  to-day  be 
Aristides  than  be  numbered  amongst  the  proudest  of  his  persecutors  ? 


42  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate, 

Socrates,  too,  in  violation  of  every  principle  of  justice,  was  con- 
demned to  a  dungeon  and  to  death.  Yet  what  name  is  more  honored 
in  history*  than  his?  And  which  of  his  unjust  judges  would  not 
gladly,  hide  himself  in  the  utter  darkness  of  oblivion  from  the  with- 
ering scorn  and  contempt  of  all  mankind  ? 

From  the  noble  example  of  Aristides  and  of  Socrates  let  American 
statesmen  learn  wisdom,  and  from  the  undying  infamy  of  their  cow- 
ardly time-serving  persecutors  let  political  demagogues  of  to-day  take 
warning. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

MISTAKES    OF   CATHOL.ICS   IN    DEALING   WITH   THE    SCHOOL    QUESTION. 

The  New  Tork  Catholic  Review  of  November  26th,  1881,  pub- 
lished an  able  article  on  the  educational  question,  taken  from  The 
Boston  Journal  of  Education,  and  in  commenting  on  the  same, 
our  Catholic  contemporary  among  other  things  said  : 

''''Let  it  always  be  borne  in  mind  that  we  are  in  favor  of  free 
schools^  provided  they  be  fair''' 

This,  of  course,  is  an  entirely  safe  proposition  as  stated,  because 
everybody  is  supposed  to  be  in  favor  of  whatever  is  fair,  as  he 
understands  the  meaning  of  the  word  fair.  But  we  are  left  in 
doubt  as  to  what  kind  of  free  schools  our  esteemed  contemporary 
would  consider  fair. 

Suppose,  for  example,  that  all  our  public  schools  were  such  that 
every  child  in  the  land  could  be  educated  therein,  without  any 
danger  either  to  its  health,  its  life,  its  morals,  or  its  religion.  In 
other  words,  suppose  that  the  public-school  system  were  otherwise 
perfect,  would  it  be  fair  to  make  them  free  for  all,  and  would  the 
editor  of  the  Review  be  in  favor  ot  making  them  free  for  the  chil- 
dren of  the  rich  as  well  as  those  of  the  poor?  If  he  would,  then 
we  should  like  to  have  him  answer  one  or  two  other  questions, 
namely  :  Does  not  every  parent,  by  virtue  of  assuming  the  duties 
of  the  parental'  office,  become  bound  by  the  natural  law  to  feed  and 
clothe  and  educate  his  children  ?  In  other  words,  is  not  the  educa- 
tion of  one's  own  children  a  just  debt  which,  if  able,  he  is  morally 
bound  to  pay  ?  And  if  a  proper  education  is  a  debt  which  every 
parent,  according  to  his  ability,  owes  to  his  own  children,  upon 


Mistakes  of  Catholics  in  Dealing  with  the  School  Question.   43 

what  principle  of  fairness  or  justice  can  the  State  take  one  man's 
money  with  which  to  pay  the  debt  of  another? 

Again,  if  feeding,  clothing,  and  educating  one's  own  children 
are  all  parental  obligations  with  exactly  the  same  origin,  standing 
upon  precisely  the  same  moral  footing,  and  having  identically  the 
same  binding  force,  then  has  not  the  State  the  very  same  right 
to  feed  and  clothe  that  it  has  to  educate,  at  public  expense,  the 
children  of  parents  who  are  abundantly  able  to  discharge  these 
obligations  ?  And  if  it  is  just  and  fair  to  raise  by  general  taxation 
a  common  fund  for  the  feeding,  clothing,  and  educating  of  all  the 
children  in  the  country,  why  is  it  not  equally  just  and  fair  to  extend 
the  same  principle  still  further,  by  compelling  all  to  contribute  to 
a  common  fund  for  the  purpose  of  feeding  and  clothing  everybody 
else,  as  well  as  everybody's  children? 

Again,  is  it  fair  that  the  poor  old  man  and  his  decrepit  wife, 
whom  God  has  never  blessed  with  children,  but  who  have  to  labor 
hard  sixteen  hours  a  day,  the  former  with  his  solitary  horse  and 
cart,  and  the  latter  over  her  wash-tub,  in  order  to  keep  soul  and 
body  together,  should  be  taxed  to  help  educate  the  children  of  the 
millionaire,  who  lives  in  all  the  splendor  of  a  prince?  In  other 
words,  would  it  have  been  fair  to  levy  upon  the  rags  of  Lazarus  a 
tax  to  pay  for  educating  the  children  of  Dives? 

We  do  not  now  propose  to  discuss  these  questions,  but  shall  await 
the  answers  thereto  by  the  learned  editor  of  the  Catholic  Review, 
and  we  hope  that  when  we  understand  each  other  we  shall  both  be 
on  the  same  side. 

In  commenting  on  the  article  quoted  from  the  Boston  Journal  of 
Education,  the  editor  of  the  Catholic  Review,  while  referring  to 
our  present  public-school  system,  remarks :  "Instead  of  being  a 
bulwark,  it  is  really  a  very  great  danger,  as  people,  now  that  Cath- 
olics have  left  off  making  so  much  noise  about  the  matter,  begin 
to  see  for  themselves  " 

The  intimation  which  seems  to  be  conveyed  by  this  remark  is  that 
agitation  of  the  school  question  by  Catholics  necessarily  tends  to  pre- 
vent non-Catholics  from  seeing  or  acknowledging  the  evils  of  the 
system.  That  there  are  some  people  so  blinded  by  their  antipathy 
to  Roman  Catholicism  that  they  would  not  accept  any  truth  upon 
Catholic  authority  we  do  not  doubt,  but  that  the  great  body  of  non- 
Catholic  Americans  are  the  victims  of  so  blind  a  bigotry  we  do  not 
believe,  and  our  convictions  are  based  upon  some  years  of  contact 
with  people  of  all  shades  of  religious  and  non-religious  belief,  from 
the  strict  followers  of  Knox  and  Calvin  to  the  disciples  of  Thomas 


44  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

Paine.  That  there  is  a  very  general  disposition  amongst  non-Cath- 
olics to  distrust  the  motives  of  Catholics  when  agitating  this  school 
question  is  undoubtedly  true,  but  for  this  distrust  we  hold  that 
Catholics  are  themselves  very  largely  responsible.  The  great  evils  of 
the  public-school  system  are  such  as  affect  not  Catholics  alone,  but 
which  strike  at  the  authority  of  every  parent,  and  imperil  the  wel- 
fare, the  honor,  and  the  happiness  of  every  family,  and  consequently 
any  movement  against  this  common  foe  should  from  the  start  have 
been  in  the  name  and  on  the  behalf  of  the  whole  people,  and  not  for 
the  benefit  of  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  people. 

When  the  municipal  authorities  of  New  York  City,  more  than  forty 
years  ago,  were  appealed  to  for  relief  against  the  unjust  exactions  and 
cruel  oppressions  of  this  monstrous  system,  that  appeal,  as  it  seems 
to  us,  ought  to  have  been  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  that  city,  and 
for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  people  ;  but  instead  of  that,  the  petition 
prepared  by,  or  under  the  aspices  of,  the  illustrious  Archbishop 
Hughes,  which  was  expected  to  result  in  securing  their  educational 
rights  to  a  small  portion  of^the  inhabitants  of  that  great  metropolis, 
was  headed  thus : 

"  To  the  Honorable  the  Board  of  Aldermen 

of  the  City  of  New  York  : 

"  THE  PETITION  OF  THE  CATHOLICS  OF  NEW  YORK  RESPECT- 
FULLY REPRESENTS,"  &c. 

The  petition  then  goes  on  to  enumerate  the  hardships  and  injustices 
which  Catholics  were  suffering  from  this  system,  seemingly  taking 
it  for  granted  that  it  was  good  enough  for  the  rest  of  mankind. 

To  this  it  may  be  answered  that  Catholics  had  some  grievances 
to  complain  of  under  the  system  which  non-Catholics  had  not.  This 
may  be  very  true,  but  then  it  is  equally  true  that  underlying  the  whole 
system  was  a  fundamental  wrong  which  was  sapping  the  foundation 
of  family  government,  and  poisoning  the  very  sources  of  all  domes- 
tic happiness,  and  threatening  the  downfall  and  ruin  of  all  civil  gov- 
ernment and  of  social  order  itself.  Under  these  circumstances  it  was 
seemingly  as  illy-advised  a  movement  for  Catholics  to  make  an  isolated 
attack  upon  the  system,  upon  the  sole  ground  of  its  antagonism 
to  their  faith,  as  it  would  have  been  in  revolutionary  times  for  the 
Catholics  of  old  Maryland  to  have  declared  war  against  Great  Britain 
upon  the  sole  ground  that  she  was  a  Protestant  power  and  imposed 
unjust  burdens  upon  the  Catholics  of  that  colony.  Had  the  Catholics 
of  those  days  raised  such  an  issue  as  that,  and  insisted  upon  their 
non-Catholic  neighbors  aiding  them  in  fighting  their  battles  upon 


Mistakes  of  Catholics  in  Dealing  with  the  School  Question.   45 

such  purely  Roman  Catholic  grounds,  instead  of  planting  themselves 
upon  the  broad  principles  of  human  liberty,  which  were  admittedly 
as  dear  to  the  Virginia  Episcopalians  and  New  England  Puritans  as 
to  themselves,  how  many  recruits  outside  of  their  own  borders  would 
they  have  been  able  to  raise  for  such  a  war?  Here  then,  we  believe, 
was  the  first  fatal  mistake  that  the  Catholics  of  this  country  fell  into 
in  fighting  the  school  question,  namely,  the  making  of  it  a  Roman 
Catholic  question  instead  of  a  parental  one.  And  from  that  day  to 
this  a  similar  blunder  has  been  periodically  perpetrated — only  on  a 
smaller  scale — in  various  parts  of  the  country,  invariably  resulting 
in  widening  the  breach  between  Catholics  and  non-Catholics  on  this 
educational  question.  Another  serious  blunder — to  call  it  by  no 
harsher  name — which  many  of  our  Catholics  appear  to  us  to  have 
made,  is  the  keeping  up  of  a  terrible  cry  about  the  Godless  public 
schools,  and  the  injustice  of  forcing  Catholics  to  pay  for  their  sup- 
port, whenever  they  are  denied  a  share  in  the  filthy  lucre  which  pays 
the  price  of  running  the  institution  ;  and  then  subsiding  into  the 
utmost  docility,  and  becoming  perfectly  reconciled  to  this  demon  of 
iniquity  the  moment  they  are  allowed  to  pocket  the  price  of  the  inno- 
cent souls  which  it  sends  to  destruction. 

It  is  evident  that  one  great  reason  why  this  class  of  Catholics — if 
they  can  be  called  such — have  made  so  little  impression  upon  the 
non-Catholic  mind  by  the  "  noise"  they  have  made  about  the  public- 
school  system  was  because  their  course  of  conduct  has  not  harmo- 
nized with  their  words. 

Still  another  reason  is,  that  there  has  not  been,  and  is  not  now, 
any  proper  harmony  between  Catholics  themselves.  We  find  priest 
disagreeing  with  priest,  and  layman  disagreeing  with  layman  on 
this  vital  question.  All  this  appears  to  us  to  arise  from  the  fact  of 
ignoring  the  great  and  fundamental  principles  of  the  natural  law 
which  makes  it  the  right  and  the  duty  of  fathers  and  mothers,  of  all 
creeds  and  of  no  creed,  to  direct  and  control  the  education  of  their 
own  children  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences. 
This  is  a  principle  which  is  dear  not  only  to  the  Catholic,  but  to  the 
Protestant,  the  Jew,  and  the  infidel.  It  is  upon  this  platform  that 
many  of  our  best  and  ablest  California  minds,  of  all  classes  of  re- 
ligionists and  non-religionists,  are  beginning  to  take  their  stand. 
And  we  do  but  simple  justice  when  we  say  that,  as  a  general  rule, 
we  have  found  Protestants  and  other  non-Catholics  as  ready,  and 
oftentimes  far  more  ready,  to  take  their  stand  with  us  upon  this  plat- 
form than  were  many  of  our  co-religionists.  If  we  Catholics  would 
make  sure  of  non-Catholic  assistance  in  our  efforts  to  reform  our 


46  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

public-school  system,  we  must  first  make  sure  that  we.  ourselves, 
are  on  the  right  road  to  such  reform,  and  that  our  platform  of  prin- 
ciples is  not  only  right,  but  broad  enough  to  afford  standing  room  for 
all  child-loving  parents,  however  widely  they  may  differ  from  us  on 
religious  questions.  But  if  Catholics  themselves  proclaim  false 
principles,  they  ought  not  to  find  followers.  That  some  very  emi- 
nent Catholics  have,  from  time  to  time,  undertaken  to  maintain  very 
erroneous  theories  touching  this  educational  question  seems  to  us 
undeniable.  For  example,  we  now  have  before  us  a  book  published 
in  1876  by  the  Catholic  Publication  Society  of  New  York,  entitled 
"  Catholics  and  Education"  apparently  intended  to  set  forth  the 
position  occupied  by  Catholics  on  the  much  vexed  school  question. 
The  book  is  made  up  of  articles  written  by  eminent  Catholics,  and 
originally  published  in  the  Catholic  World.  The  following  lines 
from  the  preface  explain  the  object  of  this  publication  : 

"  The  desire  to  understand  the  position  of  Catholics  on  this  sub- 
ject is  wide-spread,  and  there  is  a  demand  among  Catholics  them- 
selves for  more  abundant  information.  These  considerations  have 
induced  the  editor  of  the  Catholic  World  to  reprint  the  following 
series  of  articles  from  the  pages  of  that  magazine." 

One  of  these  articles,  which  is  thus  given  to  the  world  as  an  ex- 
planation of  "  the  position  of  Catholics  on  this  subject,"  at  page  92 
contains  the  following : 

"  We  are  decidedly  in  favor  of  free  public  schools  for  all  the 
children  of  the  land,  and  we  hold  that  the  property  of  the  State 
should  educate  the  children  of  the  State." 

Now  for  one,  we  most  solemnly  protest  against  the  soundness  of 
this  so-called  Catholic  position  on  the  school  question.  We  main- 
tain that  it  is  both  Communistic  and  Pagan.  We  utterly  deny  that 
the  State  has  any  children.  It  is  true  that,  by  a  fiction  of  the  law  in 
use  in  England,  bastard  children  are  sometimes  called  the  children 
of  the  people.  And  if  the  writer  of  the  article  from  which  the 
above  extract  is  taken  intends  to  say  that  the  property  of  the  State 
should  bear  this  burden  of  educating  the  State's  bastard  children, 
we  shall  urge  no  particular  objection ;  but  then  the  question  arises, 
What  is  the  property  of  the  State  ?  Surely  it  is  not  the  property  of 
the  private  citizen.  If  the  State  owns  all  the  property  which  we 
have  heretofore  supposed  belonged  to  individual  citizens,  the  reign 
of  Communism  has  already  begun.  If,  as  seems  to  be  claimed,  the 
vState  owns  all  the  children  and  all  the  property  too,  we  can  see  no 
good  reason  why  she  may  not,  and  ought  not,  in  common  fairness, 


I 

Roman  Pontiffs  on  Parental  Rights  of  non- Catholics.        47 

to  make  an  equal  distribution  of  her  own  property  amongst  her  own 
children.  After  all,  this  is  the  true  theory  upon  which  rests  this 
Communistic  system  of  public  schools. 

On  page  94,  in  the  course  of  the  same  article  just  quoted,  after 
advocating  a  general  division  of  the  public  school  money,  among 
such  religious  denominations  as  might  desire  such  division,  the 
writer  goes  on  to  say  :  "  But  we  are  asked  what  shall  be  done  with 
the  large  body  of  citizens  who  are  neither  Catholic  nor  Protestant? 
Such  citizens,  we  reply,  have  no  religion ;  and  they  who  have  no 
religion  have  no  conscience  that  people  who  have  religion  are  bound 
to  respect.  If  they  refuse  to  send  their  children  either  to  Hebrew 
schools,  or  the  Catholic  schools,  or,  in  fine,  to  the  Protestant  schools, 
let  them  found  schools  of  their  own  at  their  own  expense." 

In  other  words,  let  us  of  the  various  churches — Catholics,  Protest- 
ants, and  Jews — combine  our  forces  and  inflict  upon  all  who  can  not 
honestly  and  will  not  hypocritally  join  some  church  exactly  the 
same  kind  of  wrong  under  which  we  ourselves  have  been  groaning 
for  a  long  series  of  years. 

If  the  editor  of  the  Catholic  Review  refers  to  noises  like  these, 
we  fully  concur  with  him  in  his  intimation  ti\a.\.such  "  noises"  were 
well  calculated  to  prevent  other  people  from  perceiving  the  evil 
results  of  our  public  schools.  But  if  Catholics  will  wisely  maintain 
the  great  principles  of  human  liberty  and  equal  parental  rights  with- 
out regard  to  differences  upon  questions  concerning  either  politics  or 
religion,  there  is  no  danger  but  that  they  will  find  a  ready  and  cor- 
dial response  on  the  part  of  intelligent  and  honest  people,  whether, 
they  belong  to  any  church  organization  or  not. 


CHAPTEE  VEIL 

TFIE   ROMAN   PONTIFFS   ON    THE    PARENTAL    RIGHTS     OF    NON-CATHOLICS — THE 
EQUAL  RIGHTS  OF  CATHOLICS,  PROTESTANTS,  JEWS,  AND  PAGANS  UPHELD. 

THE  following  extract  from  a  sermon  of  Right  Rev.  Bishop 
Cameron,  delivered  at  the  laying  of  the  corner-stone  of  a  new  con- 
vent at  Sidney,  is  copied  from  the  Cleveland  Catholic  Universe  of 
November  6th,  1884. 

In  defining  the  position  of  the  church  on  this  question  of  parental 
rights  in  educational  matters,  the  learned  Bishop  says : 


48  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the.  Federal  Senate. 

"  Her  principle  and  practice  in  this  matter  were  admirably  illus- 
trated in  the  thirteenth  century,  when  the  Popes  were  in  the  very 
zenith  of  their  temporal  power  and  influence,  and  Innocent  III  ruled 
the  world  from  the  Chair  of  Peter.  Certain  zealots  proposed  that 
the  infant  children  of  Jews  and  Mahometans  should  be  forcibly  taken 
away  from  their  parents,  baptized  and  educated  as  Catholics.  How 
was  the  proposal  met?  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  the  prince  of  theolo- 
gians, repudiated  it  as  a  wicked  innovation. 

"  He  urged  that  such  was  not  the  usage  of  the  Catholic  Church  ; 
that  there  had  been  powerful  Catholic  sovereigns,  the  Con- 
stantines  and  Theodosii,  who  had  many  saintly  and  enlightened 
prelates,  like  Saints  Sylvester  and  Ambrose,  to  advise  them,  and 
that  such  faithful  bishops  would  not  have  neglected  to  recommend 
the  proposed  plan,  had  it  been  conformable  to  reason.  He  further 
proved  that  it  was  repugnant  to  natural  justice,  nature  having 
made  the  child  a  thing  belonging  to  the  father,  the  author  of 
its  being,  and  that  child,  therefore,  ought  to  remain  under  the 
parents'  care  and  control  until  it  should  attain  to  the  use  of 
reason.  Hence,  it  would  be  manifest  injustice  to  withdraw  the 
child  in  the  meantime  from  the  parents,  or  to  do  anything  to  it 
against  the  parents'  will ;  but  when  the  young  person  has  attained 
the  use  of  his  free  will,  he  is  then  his  own,  sui  juris,  and  is  to  be 
led  to  the  church,  not  by  violence,  but  by  persuasion,  (212,  q.  10. 
a.  12).  Such  was  the  unanswerable  logic  with  which  '  the  Angel 
of  the  Schools,'  the  wonder  of  all  ages  and  the  admiration  of  his 
own,  utterly  discredited  the  proposed  encroachment  on  parental 
rights,  and  upheld  their  inviolable  sacredness. 

*  *  #  *  *  #  * 

' '  In  the  best  period  of  Roman  society  we  are  told  that  '  the  State 
presumed  not  to  pass  the  threshold  of  the  Roman  father  '  with  any 
educational  code  in  hand,  though  it  did,  at  a  later  and  worse  period, 
attempt  to  enforce  the  tyrannous  and  novel  S}/stem  imported  from 
captive  Greece,  which  gradually  changed  and  disfigured  the  fail- 
face  of  Roman  life.  But  hostile  as  was  the  Roman  Empire  before 
its  conversion  to  Christianity,  it  did  not  seek  to  educate  the  children 
of  Catholics  in  Paganism,  or  to  prevent  Catholic  parents  from  bring- 
ing up  their  children  in  their  own  religion.  Even  when  Julian  the 
Apostate  closed  the  imperial  schools  to  Christian  teachers,  and  for- 
bade Christians  to  study  the  Pagan  classics  and  philosophy,  he  never 
encouraged  the  kidnapping  of  Christian  children  and  the  educating 
of  them  in  the  religion  of  the  State.  This  is  a  refinement  which 
exclusively  belongs  to  modern  secularism,  utterly  at  variance  both 
with  Christian  tradition  and  with  the  sacredness  and  inviolability 
of  parental  authority.  Representing  the  temporal  order,  the  State, 
whether  Pagan  or  Christian,  has  the  right  to  look  after  the  material 
wants  and  interests  of  society,  not  after  men's  minds,  ideas,  intelli- 
gence, motives,  and  consciences.  The  Christian  State  is  bound  to 
use  its  own  powers  according  to  the  Christian  law,  but  the  Christian 
law  gives  it  no  additional  power  whatever.  All  the  power  it  has 
is  the  power  belonging  to  all  States,  whether  Pagan  or  Mahometan. 


Roman  Pontiffs  on  Parental  Rights  of  non-  Catholics.       49 

A  Pagan  prince  loses  no  right  by  his  baptism,  neither  does  he  gain 
any  new  right  by  it  over  his  subjects.  As  well,  then,  might  you 
hold  that  Nero,  Diocletian,  or  Julian  the  Apostate,  had  a  right  to 
educate  their  Christian  subjects  in  the  enormities  of  heathenism,  as 
to  maintain  that  the  civil  power  has  now  the  right  to  trample  on  the 
inalienable  right  of  parents  to  educate  their  own  offspring  as  their 
conscience  may  dictate.  The  State,  therefore,  can  interfere  in  edu- 
cation only  as  a  helper  of  those  naturally  charged  with  the  education 
of  the  young ;  consequently  its  first  duty,  in  a  community  of  mixed 
religions,  is  that  of  strict  impartiality  with  regard  to  the  various 
churches.  To  employ  its  educational  machinery  to  protestantize  the 
Catholic,  or  to  catholicize  Protestant  children,  or  to  sap  the  religious 
faith  of  either,  would  be  an  intolerable  usurpation  and  injustice. 
Such  a  course  of  proceeding  would,  instead  of  helping,  hinder 
parents  from  educating  their  children  according  to  their  conscientious 
convictions.  No  ;  it  can  never  be  too  often  repeated  that  the  State 
has  no  right  to  educate  or  to  control  education.  For  Christian 
States,  as  States,  are  not  different  from  Pagan  States,  both  having 
the  same  end  and  the  same  matter  for  their  jurisdiction  ;  and  who 
will  presume  to  say  that  the  Pagan  State  ever  had  the  right  to  con- 
trol and  direct  the  education  of  its  Christian  subjects?  Who  will 
presume  to  say  that  it  had  or  has  the  right  to  mould  Christians' 
minds,  to  discipline  their  understandings,  to  control  their  wills,  to 
direct  the  whole  man,  and  to  fashion  him  after  its  own  prejudices 
into  a  so-called  good  citizen?" 

As  a  most  admirable  supplement  to  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Cameron's 
sermon  on  parental  rights,  it  affords  us  great  pleasure  to  be  able  to 
present  herewith  an  extract  from  a  letter  just  received  from  Right 
Rev.  E.  O.  Connell,  of  Marysville,  California.  The  letter  was 
written  from  Baltimore  during  the  late  session  of  the  plenary  coun- 
cil, and  bears  date  Nov.  27,  1884.  The  Right  Rev.  Bishop  says  : 

••  My  Dear  Mr.  Montgomery:  Some  time  ago  I  promised  to 
furnish  you  with  the  exact  words  of  the  Pope  forbidding  the  least 
pressure  to  be  put  upon  ;/0/z-Catholic  children  attending  Catholic 
schools.  But  'tis  not  till  now  that  I  was  able  to  find  the  precise 
words,  \  i/  : 

••  •  We  forbid  non-Catholic  pupils  attending  Catholic  schools  to 
be  obliged  to  assist  at  Mass  or  other  religious  exercises.  Let  them 
be  left  to  their  own  discretion.'  Instruction  of  the  Sacred  Congre- 
gation of  Propaganda  Fide,  25th  April,  1868,  transmitted  to  all 
the  Catholic  bishops  of  North  America." 

These  are  potent  utterances  in  behalf  of  liberty,  which  speak  for 
themselves. 

It  is  our  firm  belief,  founded  both  on  reason  and  personal  experi- 
ence, that  if  all  our  American  Catholics,  bishops,  priests,  and 
people,  instead  of  clamoring  for  special  school  laws  intended  for 


50  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

their  own  exclusive  benefit,  would  boldly  and  persistently  proclaim 
to  the  world  these  broad  and  universal  principles  of  parental  liberty 
as  the  inalienable  heritage  of  Catholics,  Protestants,  Jews,  Mahom- 
etans, and  Free-thinkers,  they  would  soon  find  their  voices  heard 
and  their  ranks — as  the  friends  of  educational  reform — swollen  by 
tens  of  millions  of  those  who  are  to-day  numbered  with  their  bitterest 
opponents. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

SPECIFICATION   OP   FATAL    ERRORS    INHERENT    IN   THE    NEW   ENGLAND  SCHOOL 

SYSTEM. 

EVERY  standard  writer  on  the  subject  of  either  law  or  morals  pro- 
claims with  one  voice  that  parents  are  bound  by  the  natural  law  to 
feed,  clothe,  and  educate  their  own  children.  Bouvier  says  :  "  The 
"  principal  obligations  which  parents  owe  their  children  are  their 
"  maintenance,  their  protection,  and  their  education."1  Chancellor 
Kent  says  :  "  The  duties  of  parents  to  their  children,  as  being  their 
"  natural  guardians,  consist  in  maintaining  and  educating  them 
"  during  their  season  of  infancy  and  youth."2 

Sir  William  Blackstone  says  :  "  The  last  duty  of  parents  to  their 
"  children  is  that  of  giving  them,  an  education  suitable  to  their  sta- 
"  tion  in  life ;  a  duty  pointed  out  by  reason,  and  of  far  the  greatest 
"  importance  of  any.  For,"  continues  that  author,  "  as  Puffendorf 
"  very  well  observes,  '  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  or  allow  that  a  pa- 
"  '  rent  has  conferred  any  considerable  benefit  upon  his  child  by 
"  4  bringing  him  into  the  world  if  he  afterwards  entirely  neglects 
"  '  his  culture  and  education,  and  suffers  him  to  grow  up  like  a 
"  '  mere  beast,  to  lead  a  life  useless  to  others  and  shameful  to  him- 
"  '  self.'  "3  Dr.  Wayland,  in  his  Elements  of  Moral  Science,  says: 
"  The  duty  of  parents  is  generally  to  educate  or  to  bring  up  their 
"  children  in  such  manner  as  they  believe  will  be  most  for  their 
"future  happiness,  both  temporal  and  eternal."4  Again:  "  He 
"  (the  parent)  is  bound  to  inform  himself  of  the  peculiar  habits 
"  and  reflect  upon  the  probable  future  situation  of  his  child,  and 
"  deliberately  to  consider  what  sort  of  education  will  most  con- 
44  duce  to'  his  future  happiness  and  usefulness."5  Again:  "The 

1  Bouvier's  Institutes,  vol    z,  p.  118.         2  2  Kent,  196. 
3Cooley's  Blackstone,  vol.  1,  p.  449. 

*  Wayland's  Elements  of  Moral  Science,  814. 

*  Wayland's  Moral  Science,  31ft. 


Fatal  Errors  Inherent  in  New  England  System.  51 

"  duties  of  a  parent  are  established  by  God*  and  God  requires  us 
"  not  to  violate  them."1  According  to  the  laws  of  nature,  says 
Wayland,  "  the  teacher  is  only  the  agent;  the  parent  is  the  prin- 
"  cipal."2  But,  under  the  New  England  system,  as  by  law  estab- 
lished, the  parent  is  not  recognized  as  the  principal,  nor  is  the 
teacher  regarded  as  his  agent.  The  Legislature  of  California  has 
gone  so  far  towards  elevating  the  teacher  above  the  parents  as  to 
make  it  a  penal  offence  for  any  parent  to  even  insult  the  teacher 
of  a  public  school  in  the  presence  of  his  pupils,  no  difference  what 
the  provocation  may  be. 

Section  654  of  the  Penal  Code  of  this  State  reads:  u  Every  pa- 
"  rent,  guardian,  or  other  person,  who  upbraids,  insults,  or  abuses 
"  any  teacher  of  the  public  schools,  in  the  presence  or  hearing  of  a 
"  pupil  thereof,  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor." 

If  the  teacher  insults  the  parent,  in  the  presence  of  his  children, 
there  is  no  penalty  to  pay,  or  if  the  dirtiest  loafer  in  the  land  insults 
the  teacher  of  a  private  school,  without  the  least  cause  or  provoca- 
tion, that  is  all  right;  but  woe  be  to  the  father  or  mother  who  has 
the  temerity  to  breathe  one  offensive  word  against  the  teacher  of  a 
public  school,  in  the  hearing  of  his  pupils,  even  should  it  be  to  chide 
him  for  his  immoral  conduct  towards  the  child  of  the  offender. 

In  his  biennial  report  for  1864,  our  State  Superintendent  of  Pub- 
lic Instruction — quoting  from  the  judicial  decisions  of  some  of  the 
Eastern  States,  construing  their  public-school  laws,  which  are  in 
all  respects  similar  to  our  own — maintains  the  proposition  that 
"  the  child  should  be  taught  to  consider  his  instructor,  in  many 
"  respects,  superior  to  the  parent  in  point  of  authority"  and 
"  that  the  vulgar  impression  that  parents  have  a  legal  right 
"  to  dictate  to  teachers,  is  entirely  erroneous,"  and,  further,  that 
u  parents  have  no  remedy  as  against  the  teacher  "*  In  the  State 
of  Vermont,  in  1874,  a  School  Committee  expelled  from  a  public 
school  certain  children  because  of  their  absence  from  school  on  a 
religious  holiday,  although  they  had  remained  absent  in  obedience 
to  the  commands  of  their  parents  ;  and  this,  too,  was  after  the  school 
authorities  had  been  appealed  to  in  vain  for  leave  of  absence.  This 
action  of  the  School  Committee  was  afterwards  sustained  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  State,  which  based  its  decision,  in  part,  at  least, 
on  the  ground  that  "  no  Divine  authority  had  been  quoted  or  as- 
"  serted"  to  sustain  the  right  claimed  by  these  parents.4 

1  Wayland,  321. 
"  Wayland,  316. 

3  See  Superintendent  Swett's  Biennial  Report  for  1864,  pp.  164-5-6,  and  Judicial  Decisions  there 
quoted. 
*  Ferriter  vs.  Tyler,  48  Vt.,  444. 


52  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

Thus  the  law  of  nature  and  nature's  God,  which  ordains  that  it  is 
both  the  right  and  duty  of  parents  to  educate  their  children  ki  in  such 
' '  manner  as  they  believe  will  be  most  for  their  future  happiness  "  is 
utterly  disregarded  and  set  at  naught  by  the  State,  which  ordains  that 
it  is  neither  the  right  nor  the  duty  of  parents,  but  of  the  State,  to  say 
when,  where,  by  whom,  and  in  what  manner  our  children  shall  be 
educated. 

Now,  it  is  always  possible  for  either  individuals  or  States  to  dis- 
regard and  to  violate  nature's  laws,  but  it  is  not  possible  to  do  so 
without  suffering,  sooner  or  later,  a  penalty,  and  a  penalty,  too. 
corresponding  in  magnitude  with  the  importance  of  the  law  vio- 
lated. Hence  it  is — and  we  assert  it  without  the  fear  of  successful 
contradiction — that  those  communities,  which  have  so  long  and  so 
glaringly  violated  nature's  laws  in  the  matter  of  education,  are  now 
reaping  so  heavy  and  so  deadly  a  harvest  of  crime,  pauperism,  in- 
sanity, and  suicides. 

Dr.  Wayland  has  well  said  "that  the  relaxation  of  parental  au- 
"  thority  has  always  been  found  one  of  the  surest  indications  of  the 
"  decline  of  social  order  and  the  unfailing  precursor  of  public  tur- 
"  bulence  and  anarchy."1  Now,  under  the  law,  as  we  hare  already 
seen,  parental  authority  is  not  merely  relaxed,  but  it  is  utterly  set  at 
defiance.  What,  we  would  ask,  does  parental  authority  amount  to, 
in  the  matter  of  educating  children,  when  a  parent  is  not  recognized 
as  having  any  "  remedy,  as  against  the  teacher"  for  the  wrongs 
he  may  perpetrate  against  his  child,  and  when,  as  in  California  to- 
day, the  parent  is,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  a  criminal  who  ventures 
to  send  his  own  child  to  a  school  of  his  own  choice,  and  at  his  own 
expense,  without  first  going  with  his  hat  under  his  arm  to  a  board 
of  petty  officials  to  beg  their  permission  so  to  do  ? 

If  parents,  any  longer,  have  the  least  vestige  of  authority  over  the 
all-important  matter  of  their  own  children's  education,  which  is  not 
wholly  subordinated  to  the  private  interests,  prejudices,  and  petty 
spites  of  any  and  every  little  conclave  of  irresponsible  upstarts  who, 
by  hook  or  by  crook,  can  so  manage  on  election  day  as  to  have  their 
names  on  the  tickets  of  the  winning  party,  )ye  should  feel  under 
many  obligations  if  somebody  would  inform  us  what  that  remaining 
parental  authority  is,  or  where  it  is  to  be  found. 

Is  it  not  the  almost  unanimous  cry,  on  the  part  of  parents,  through- 
out the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  that  they  can  neither  com- 
mand the  respect  nor  obedience  of  their  children,  and  are  not  our 

1  Wayland's  Elements  of  Moral  Science,  p.  313. 


Fatal  Errors  Inherent  in  Neiv  England  System.  53 

police  courts  crowded,  and  our  county  prisons  and  State  peniten- 
tiaries being  filled  with  beardless  boys,  many  of  whom  have  had 
comfortable  homes,  and  have  grown  up  in  the  society  of  respectable 
parents,  but  never  under  their  control? 

But,  perhaps,  we  shall  be  asked,  why  is  it  that  neither  politicians 
nor  the  parents  of  children  have  thus  far  done  anything  towards 
furnishing  a  remedy  for  all  these  crying  evils? 

We  answer,  the  reasons  are  numerous ;  but  the  first  and  most 
important  reason  we  shall  assign,  is  ignorance:  ignorance  of  the 
true  and  Heaven-ordained  relations  between  parent  and  child  ;  igno- 
rance of  the  reciprocal  duties  which  they  respectively  owe  to  each 
other;  yes,  and  ignorance — total  ignorance — of  the  foregoing,  terri- 
ble facts,  so  clearly  revealed  by  the  United  States  Census  Reports. 

Let  any  one  who  doubts  the  general  ignorance  of  our  people,  on 
tliis  last  subject,  test  the  matter,  by  catechising  the  first  ten  men  he 
meets  concerning  the  facts  shown  by  our  published  tables.  The 
truth  is.  that  the  advocates  of  this  New  England  system  have  been  so 
long,  so  loud,  and  so  persistent  in  proclaiming  to  the  world  its  sup- 
posed excellencies  that  nine-tenths  of  the  world  have,  without  the 
least  investigation,  concluded  to  accept  it  for  all  that  its  most  enthu- 
siastic admirers  represent  it  to  be.  Were  it  not  for  the  widespread 
and  almost  total  ignorance  on  the  part  of  parents,  as  regards  the 
poisonous  and  deadly  fruits  which  they  and  their  children,  and 
society  at  large,  are  daily  reaping  from  this  anti-parental  system  of 
education,  it  could  not  survive  a  single  month  in  its  present  shape. 
O,  how  true  it  is  that  Ignorance  is  the  mother  of  vice! 

Another  reason  why  no  remedy  has  been  applied  to  this  fearful 
malady  is  a  long-standing,  deep-seated,  and  constantly  fomented 
prejudice  in  favor  of  the  public-school  system,  which  makes  the 
politicians  afraid  to  attack  the  monster  lest  they  hurt  their  popu- 
larity. 

STILL    ANOTHER   DIFFICULTY 

is  a  want  of  harmony  among  those  who  see  and  lament  the  terrible 
evils  which  this  system  is  bringing  on  the  country,  and  who  are 
willing  to  make  any  and  every  sacrifice  to  avert  those  evils.  One 
says,  Let  us  have  the  Bible  in  the  schools.  Another  says,  No  ;  I  want 
no  Bible  in  mine.  A  third  says,  Let  us  divide  the  school  funds 
amongst  all  the  different  religious  denominations  in  such  a  manner 
that  each  denomination  shall,  as  a  body,  have  control  of  a  portion  of 
those  funds  corresponding  with  the  number  of  its  members  ;  while  a 
fourth  says,  Away  with  such  silly  nonsense  ;  we  have  far  too  much 
ecclesiasticism  in  the  public  schools  already.  But  is  there  not,  we  ask, 


54  "  Poison  Drops''1  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

A   COMMON   GROUND    WHEREON   EVERY   FRIEND  OF   EDUCATIONAL    REFORM   CAN 

STAND  ? 

Most  undoubtedly  there  is.  Let  us  recognize,  just  as  the  law  of 
nature  recognizes,  the  right  and  the  duty  of  all  parents,  having  the 
ability  so  to  do,  to  educate  their  own  children  in  their  own  way  and 
by  the  use  of  their  own  funds. 

After  all,  it  is  not  less  the  interest  than  the  duty  of  parents,  when 
they  can  do  so,  to  pay  the  cost  of  their  own  children's  education, 
and  not  to  allow  the  State  to  pay  it  for  them,  for  be  it  remembered 
that  the  cost  and  care  of  properly  feeding,  clothing,  and  educa- 
ting the  child  are  but  the  price  'which  Nature  demands  of  par- 
ents for  the  incomparable  treasure  of  the  child's  love,  honor,  and 
obedience,  and  just  in  proportion  to  the  extent  to  which  parents 
neglect  or  refuse  to  pay  this  price,  in  precisely  the  same  propor- 
tion do  they  forfeit  their  right  to  this  inestimable  boon. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  State  should  take  upon  itself  to  feed  and 
clothe,  as  well  as  to  educate,  the  child ;  does  any  one  doubt  that  a 
child  thus  fed,  clothed,  and  educated  at  the  public  expense  would 
grow  up  almost  wholly  destitute  of  parental  affection  ?  And  who  is 
so  stupidly  blind  as  not  to  see  that  the  education  of  the  child,  after 
all,  is  the  great  nourisher  of  its  affections?  Respect,  love,  and 
veneration  do  not  depend  near  so  much  on  either  the  source  or  the 
character  of  the  food  which  enters  the  stomach,  as  upon  the  source 
and  character  of  that  which  is  taken  into  the  mind  and  heart. 

But  in  cases  where  parents  have  not  sufficient  worldly  wealth  to 
give  their  children  a  good  elementary  education,  let  the  State  aid 
them  just  exactly  as  it  should  aid  them,  when  necessary,  with  means 
to  feed  and  clothe  their  children,  rather  than  let  them  either  starve 
or  go  naked.  But  for  the  same  reason  that  the  State  would  not  feed 
the  children  of  its  more  needy  citizens  upon  the  most  dainty  and 
costly  delicacies,  nor  clothe  them  in  the  finest  silks  and  satins,  so 
neither  should  it  educate  them  in  those  higher  or  merely  ornamental 
sciences  not  necessary  for  those  avocations  in  which  they  are  likely 
to  engage  in  after  life.  And  when  the  State  furnishes  educational 
aid,  let  it  do  so,  always,  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  parental 
guardianship  over  the  child.  Let  the  parent  in  such  cases  select  the 
school,  and  the  State  pay  the  teacher.  Let  this  boon  be  extended  to 
all  who  need  State  aid,  without  regard  to  differences  in  politics  or 
religion. 

Perhaps,  though,  we  shall  be  told  that  so  radical  a  change  in  the 
public-school  system,  as  that  suggested,  would  work  the  destruction 


Fatal  Errors  Inherent  in  New  England  System.  55 

of  the  system  itself.     If  that  be  so,  then  we  would  ask  whether  it  is 
better  for  us  to  destroy  the  system,  or  to  let  the  system  destroy  us? 

Again,  it  may,  perhaps,  be  objected  that  even  if  every  parent  in 
the  land  had  the  means  and  the  privilege  of  educating  his  own  chil- 
dren in  his  own  way,  still  there  would  always  be  found  some  parents 
in  every  community  who  would  neglect  this  most  sacred  duty  ;  and 
what  ought  to  be  done  with  such  parents  ?  We  answer  :  What  ought 
to  be  done  with  those  heartless  parents  who,  having  the  means  at  hand, 
either  of  their  own  or  such  as  have  been  furnished  by  the  State,  to 
comfortably  feed  and  clothe  their  children,  would,  nevertheless, 
deliberately  leave  them  to  die  of  starvation  or  perish  with  cold? 
In  either  case  such  parents  should  be  punished  as  criminals  against 
the  laws/both  of  God  and  society.  But  so  long  as  the  State  under- 
takes to  force  upon  the  children  of  any  class  of  parents  a  system  of 
education  which  they  cannot  accept  without  a  violation  of  con- 
science and  of  Nature's  laws,  it  is  nothing  less  than  the  most  cruel 
tyranny  on  the  part  of  the  State  to  make  such  a  system  compulsory. 
I  Let  every  friend  of  educational  reform  unite  in  maintaining  these 
plain,  just,  and  most  reasonable  principles,  and  the  day  is  not  distant 
when — with  Heaven's  blessing — we  shall  restore  parental  authority, 
re-establish  family  government,  and  teach  the  rising  generation  to 
love,  honor,  and  obey,  not  only  their  fathers  and  mothers,  but  also 
the  laws,  both  of  God  and  their  country. 

THE   ANTI-PARENTAL    SCHOOL    SYSTEM    DISSECTED   AND    ANALYZED. 

Should  we  wish  to  ascertain  the  exact  character  and  properties  of 
the  waters  of  our  great  Pacific  ocean,  we  would  not  undertake  to 
analyze  the  whole  ocean,  for  that  would  be  an  endless  task,  but  we 
would  take  up  at  most  a  few  ounces  of  this  water,  and,  after  making 
a  thorough  analysis  of  it,  we  would  announce  the  result  as  indicating 
the  properties  and  character  of  the  waters  of  the  Pacific.  So  it  is 
if  we  would  make  a  careful  and  reliable  analysis  of  the  essential 
principles  and  elements  which  go  to  make  up  what  is  known  as  the 
public-school  system.  If  we  were  to  undertake  to  subject  to  an 
analytical  test  the  whole  system,  with  its  entire  paraphernalia  of 
teachers,  pupils,  parents,  school  directors,  school  teachers,  school 
books,  school  funds,  and  school  houses,  as  they  exist  throughout  the 
country,  we  should  become  amazed  and  bewildered  at  the  magnitude 
of  our  undertaking,  and  would  probably  abandon  the  enterprise  in 
despair.  So  let  us  take  from  this  very  large  mass  of  school  material 
a  small  quantity  of  its  essential  elements,  just  enough  to  be  handled 
with  ease  and  examined  with  care,  and  we  shall  be  the  better  able  to 


56  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

see  what  is  the  character  of  the  ingredients  which  go  to  make  up  the 
system.  In  order  that  you,  good  reader,  may  not  accuse  us  of  un- 
fairness in  our  selection  of  the  particular  sample  to  be  analyzed,  we 
will  allow  you  to  choose  your  own  material.  Then  cast  your  eyes 
around  you  among  your  friends  and  neighbors  and  name  for  us  two 
of  the  very  best,  purest,  most  intelligent,  highly-educated,  and  reli- 
able men  of  your  acquaintance.  Let  them  be  men  of  your  own  re- 
ligion, and  belonging  to  the  same  political  party  as  yourself.  In  a 
word,  let  them  be  two  men  to  whom,  in  preference  to  all  others  in 
the  world,  you  would  be  willing  to  entrust  the  guardianship  of  that 
beautiful  little  girl  of  yours,  should  it  please  God  to  take  you  and 
and  her  mother  away  from  her  during  her  years  of  childhood.  Now, 
these  two  friends  of  yours,  whom  we  shall  call  A  and  B,  we  shall 
take  it  for  granted,  are  the  very  best  material  to  be  found  in  that 
great  mass  of  voters  who  control  by  their  votes  the  destinies  and 
shape  the  character  of  the  public-school  system  as  it  exists  in 
your  city. 

Now,  suppose  these  two  model  men  and  neighbors  should  some 
day  come  to  your  house  and  address  you  thus  :  Mr.  C.,  we  are  informed 
that  you  are  the  father  of  a  bright,  beautiful,  and  intelligent  little 
girl,  now  about  seven  years  old — just  the  proper  age  to  begin  her 
education.  We  feel  quite  anxious  that  she  should  be  properly  edu- 
cated, and,  to  tell  you  the  plain  truth,  we  are  afraid  that  if  we  leave 
the  matter  entirely  with  you  her  education  will  be  neglected.  Now 
here  is  what  we  propose  to  do.  We  propose  that  we — your  two 
best  friends — together  with  yourself,  shall  all  enter  into  a  written 
contract,  binding  ourselves  during  your  daughter's  minority  to  con- 
tribute annually  a  certain  percentage  upon  the  assessed  value  of  our 
property,  which  shall  constitute  a  fund  for  the  education  of  this,  your 
little  girl.  But  it  must,  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the  same  contract, 
be  stipulated  that  it  shall  at  all  times  be  in  the  power  of  a  majority 
of  us  three  to  select  the  teachers  and  the  school  books  for  your  child. 
Should  you,  against  the  wishes  and  without  the  consent  of  a  major- 
ity of  us,  take  your  child  away  and  send  her  to  some  other  school, 
you  must  agree  to  forfeit — should  we  choose  to  exact  it — not  exceed- 
ing twenty  dollars  for  the  first  offence,  and  not  less  than  twenty  dol- 
lars for  each  subsequent  repetition  thereof.  You  must  also  agree  and 
bind  yourself  in  advance  not  to  withhold  your  assessment,  even  should 
you  withdraw  your  child  from  the  school  of  our  selection,  because 
we  should  in  that  event  need  the  money  for  the  education  of  other 
children. 

Now  tell   us,  good  reader,  could  you  ever  consent,  while   living 


Fatal  Errors  Inherent  in  New  England  System.  57 

and  in  the  possession  of  your  reasoning  faculties,  to  entrust  such  a 
power  as  this  over  your  infant  child — girl  or  boy — to  any  two  men 
in  existence  ?  Would  you  not  spurn  such  a  proposition  as  the  above 
with  indignant  scorn,  come  from  what  source  it  might?  We  may 
here  remark,  in  passing,  that  it  surely  could  not  better  the  matter 
should  tkese  supposed  friends  and  neighbors,  in  consideration  of 
this  proposed  outrageous  betrayal  of  your  parental  trust,  even  offer 
to  perpetrate  a  similar  wrong  against  their  own  children  by  turning 
over  to  you,  the  insulted  father,  a  corresponding  share  in  their 
parental  authority.  And  yet,  good  reader,  this  miniature  picture 
which  we  have  just  drawn  of  the  public-school  system  presents 
that  system  in  its  very  best  possible  aspect ;  because  we  have  repre- 
sented you,  the  father,  as  still  allowed  to  retain  in  your  own  hands 
one-third  of  that  parental  jurisdiction  and  control  which  the  God  of 
nature  requires  you  to  exercise  over  your  child,  while  the  other 
two-thirds  are  to  be  entrusted  to  two  of  the  very  best  men  in  the 
whole  community.  But  under  the  public-school  system,  as  it  is  by 
law  established,  instead  of  retaining  in  your  own  hands  even  so  much 
as  oiK'-third  of  your  parental  authority,  you  retain  only  an  infini- 
tesimal fraction  thereof.  Where  there  are,  as  in  San  Francisco, 
tens  of  thousands  of  voters,  each  father  divides  his  parental  au- 
thority into  tens  of  thousands  of  equal  fragments,  retaining  but 
one*  of  these  fragments  for  himself,  whilst  the  great  bulk  of  this 
authority,  instead  of  being  lodged,  as  in  the  case  above  supposed, 
in  two  of  the  very  best  men  to  be  found  in  the  city,  is  scattered 
around  broadcast  amongst  tens  of  thousands  of  people,  good,  bad, 
and  indifferent.  It  is  gobbled  up  and  wielded  by  every  rough  and 
every  rake  who  is  allowed  to  vote  ;  and  this  is  what  they  call  our 
great  American  Free-School  System. 

Those  who  attempt  a  justification  of  this  monstrous  usurpation 
of  parental  authority  never  fail  to  intrench  themselves  behind  the 
hackneyed  and  much  abused  maxim,  that  "the  majority  has  the 
right  to  rule."  But  there  are  some  things  in  which  the  majority 
has  no  right  to  rule.  For  example  :  The  majority  has  no  right  to 
select  for  a  man  his  religion  ;  neither  has  it  a  right  to  choose  for  a 
man  the  wife,  nor  for  a  woman  the  husband,  who  is  to  become  a 
parent  of  his  or  her  children. 

Now  the  teacher  of  a  child  is  simply  a  person  who,  for  the  time 
being,  acts  as  a  substitute  for  its  parents.  But  if  a  majority  has  no 
right  to  select  the  principal,  what  right  has  it  to  select  the  sub- 
stitute? In  other  words,  if  a  majority  has  no  right  to  force  a  man 
or  woman,  who  aspires  to  become  the  father  or  mother  of  a  child, 


58  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

to  marry  a  spouse,  to  whom  he  or  she  objects,  on  the  ground  that 
such  a  spouse  by  pernicious  teachings  or  bad  example  would  cor- 
rupt the  children  of  such  marriage,  or  poison  their  minds  and  hearts 
against  the  objecting  party,  then,  in  the  name  of  consistency  and  com- 
mon sense,  what  right  has  this  same  majority  to  accomplish  the  self- 
same and  even  worse  result,  by  selecting  as  the  teacher  (to  take  the 
place  of  both  parents)  a  person  who  is  distasteful  to  them  and  who 
may  imperil  and  destroy  the  health,  the  lives,  the  honor,  the  virtue, 
and  the  filial  affection  of  their  children,  as  well  as  their  own  peace 
of  mind,  without  in  any  way  being  held  responsible  to  them  or 
either  of  them  for  his  conduct? 


CHAPTEE  X. 

A  VOICE  FROM  SAN  OJJENTIN — CALIFORNIA'S  EDUCATED  CONVICTS — ALL  THE 
YOUNGER  CRIMINALS  CAN  READ  AND  WRITE — TWO  MORE  PENITENTIARIES 
NECESSARY  TO  ACCOMMODATE  MASSACHUSETTS  PUBLIC-SCHOOL  PUPILS — 
CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS  THE  HIGH  ROAD  TO  THE  PENITENTIARY — 
HOW  THE  ONE  SERVES  AS  A  'PREPARATORY  DEPARTMENT  FOR  THE  OTHER. 

THE  following  is  from  resident  director's  (Lieutenant  Governor 
Johnston's)  biennial  report,  showing  the  condition  of  the  California 
State  prison  and  State  prisoners  for  the  two  years  ending  June  30, 
1877.  This  report,  under  the  caption  of  "  Education,"  says  : 

"  Turnkey's  Table,  Number  VII,  showing  the  educational  abilities 
of  the  inmates  of  the  prison,  gives  the  number  who  can  read  and 
write  at  nine  hundred  and  eighty-five  ;  read  but  not  write,  at  twenty- 
four  ;  neither  read  nor  write,  at  three  hundred  and  nine.  If  we 
consider  the  number  of  Chinese  and  Indians  in  our  prisons  who 
can  neither  read  nor  write,  and  deduct  them  from  the  whole  number 
so  as  to  match  our  whites  and  negroes  against  the  same  in  other 
States,  it  will  be  found  that  ours  possess  the  advantage  in  a  large 
degree.  In  fact,  among  the  younger  convicts  they  can  all  read  and 
write." 

The  Turnkey's  Table,'  Number  III,  shows  that  the  number  of  Chi- 
namen in  the  State  prison  is  197.  Now,  if  we  deduct  this  197 
from  the  entire  number  of  convicts  who  can  neither  read  nor  write, 
it  leaves  just  112  who  can  neither  read  nor  write  against  985  who 
can  both  read  and  write.  Then  again,  from  this  112  there  remain 
still  to  be  deducted  the  Indians,  whose  number  is  not  given  in  the 
Turnkey's  Table.  But  the  most  startling  revelation  contained  in  the 


A  Voice  from  San  Quentin.  59 

above  extract  is  found  in  the  concluding  sentence,  which  says  :  "  In 
fact,  among  the  younger  convicts,  they  can  all  read  and  write  " 

Now,  of  the  younger  convicts,  as  appears  from  the  Turnkey's  Ta- 
ble, (No.  6,)  there  are  some  253  but  twenty-one  years  old  or  under, 
while  there  are  831  under  thirty  years  old.  But  while  our  young 
State  is  making  such  rapid  strides  in  the  way  of  forcing  her  boys 
first  into  her  anti-parental  schools  and  then  into  her  penitentiaries, 
her  great  exemplar,  Massachusetts,  it  would  seem,  is  not  neglectful 
of  her  laurels.  The  regular  Boston  correspondent  of  the  San  Fran- 
cisco Morning  Call,  under  date  of  November  16,  1877,  says: 
"  The  rapid  progress  of  knowledge  peculiar  to  the  educational 
"  system  of  this  State  has  led  to  the  erection  of  two  more  State 
"  prisons,  one  of  which,  for  women,  was  successfully  opened  a 
"  few  days  ago,  the  number  of  wicked  females  who  knocked  for 
"  admission  being  forty-four.  Present  indications  point  toward  the 
"  rapid  filling  up  of  this  new  institution  in  a  few  months."1 

We  are  constantly  told,  by  the  friends  and  admirers  of  our  anti- 
parental  educational  system,  that  it  is  much  better  and  more  econom- 
ical for  the  State  to  expend  money  for  schools  and  school-houses  than 
tor  jails  and  penitentiaries.  Now,  taking  the  foregoing  figures  as  a 
basis  of  calculation,  it  would  be  a  very  interesting  process,  and  would 
doubtless  lead  to  most  important  results,  if  some  admirer  of  our  pres- 
ent educational  system,  who  is  a  good  calculator,  would  make  an 
estimate  in  dollars  and  cents  of  the  amount  of  money  saved  to  the 
State  of  California  per  annum  by  that  kind  of  education,  which  is 
sustained  at  a  cost  of  more  than  two  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars  a 
year,  and  which  sends  to  the  State  prison  its  hundreds  of  beardless 
boys,  while  total  illiteracy — which  we  all  lament  as  a  great  evil — 
sends  not  so  much  as  one  solitary  boy  to  that  popular  institution. 

Should  anybody,  in  making  such  an  estimate,  find  the  profits  ex- 
ceedingly small  in  proportion  to  the  investment,  let  him  not  convert 
that  fact  into  an  argument  against  education  itself,  but  only  against 
this  anti-parental  system  of  education  ;  a  system  which,  being  con- 
ceived in  crime,  brought  forth  in  crime,  and  nurtured  in  crime, 
must,  of  necessity,  propagate  crime.  Hoping  that  some  one  better 
versed  in  figures  than  ourselves  will  solve  for  us  the  above  problem, 
we  shall  now  proceed  to  show 

HOW  IT  IS  THAT  OUR  EDUCATED  BOYS  FIND  THEIR  WAY  TO  THE  PENITENTIARY. 

Here,  we  will  suppose,  is  an  honest,  industrious,  hard-working 
laboring  man,  who  has  a  family  consisting  of  himself,  his  wife, 

1  See  Call  of  November  25, 1877. 


60  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

and  half  a  dozen  children,  half  girls  and  half  boys.  To  put 
the  case  in  as  favorable  an  aspect  as  possible,  we  will  suppose 
that  he  is  in  moderately  good  circumstances,  being  out  of  debt 
and  the  owner  of  a  comfortable  homestead,  but  is  compelled  to 
rely  solely  on  his  own  labor  and  that  of  his  wife  for  means 
wherewith  to  feed  and  clothe  his  family.  All  his  children  are 
of  an  age  to  attend  school,  and  all  are  attending  the  public 
schools,  as  the  law  directs.  In  the  first  place,  heavy  and  fre- 
quent drafts  are  made  on  the  father's  scanty  and  hard-earned  re- 
sources in  order  to  supply  these  children  with  all  the  required 
books  and  stationery.  These  six  children,  too,  must  each  and  all 
be  dressed,  not  according  to  the  means  of  their  parents,  but  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  of  the  school  a'nd  the  demands  of  fashion,  and  inas- 
much as  the  more  wealthy  and  aristocratic  classes  prescribe  the  law 
of  fashion,  they  must  dress  as  well  as  the  children  of  the  man  who 
counts  his  wealth  by  the  million.  If  they  do  not  so  dress,  they  will 
have  to  encounter  not  only  the  contemptuous  sneers  of  fellow-pupils 
and  class-mates,  but,  perhaps,  the  displeasure  of  teachers,  if  not 
expulsion  from  school.  The  father  would  reason  and,  perhaps,  re- 
monstrate with  the  teacher  on  the  subject  of  these  rigid  and  extrava- 
gant rules  of  dress,  but  then  he  remembers  that  the  law  has  said 
that  the  teacher  of  a  public  school  is  not  the  agent  of  the  parent, 
nor  answerable  to  him  for  his  conduct  toward  the  pupil.  He  also 
remembers  that  the  law  makes  it  criminal  for  a  parent  to  insult  a 
teacher,  while  the  teacher  may  insult  the  parent  with  impunity ; 
and  for  these  reasons  he  does  not  care  to  risk  an  altercation  with  the 
teacher  on  the  subject  of  the  boy's  .dress  ;  it  would  be  too  unequal 
a  contest.  So,  in  order  to  meet  these  growing  demands  for  books, 
stationery,  and  clothing  for  their  children,  these  poor  parents  are 
compelled  to  work  harder,  dress  lighter,  and  feed  more  scantily  than 
is  compatible  with  either  health  or  comfort.  The  father  rises  earlier 
in  the  morning  than  formerly,  works  later  at  night,  and  goes  with 
worn-out,  ragged,  or  patched-up  clothes,  in  order  that  his  eldest  boy 
may  get  a  new  suit  so  as  to  make  as  respectable  an  appearance  as 
any  lad  at  the  Lincoln  School. 

The  mother,  too,  in  worn-out  and  tattered  apparel,  plies  her  wash- 
board with  unwonted  vigor  in  order  to  get  money  to  pay  the  dress- 
maker for  fitting,  cutting,  and  making  Lizzie's  nice  new  dress,  for 
the  teacher  says  she  must  not  come  to  school  looking  like  an  old  wash- 
erwoman's girl. '  The  daughter,  too,  is  learning  to  play  upon  the 
piano,  and  of  course  it  will  not  do  for  her  to  lend  a  helping  hand  to- 
wards washing  either  clothes  or  dishes,  for  the  teacher  says  it  will 


A  Voice  from  San  ^uentin.  61 

spoil  the  shape  of  her  fingers  and  impair  the  delicacy  of  her  sense 
of  touch.  Thus  both  father  and  mother  work  harder  than  slaves, 
and  dress  coarser  than  beggars,  in  order  that  their  children  may  en- 
joy the  great  advantages  of  our  glorious  free-school  system  of  edu- 
cation. 

In  the  meantime  these  children  are  sitting  in  the  same  classes, 
studying  the  same  books,  wearing  the  same  costly  fabrics,  partici- 
pating in  the  same  amusements,  contracting  the  same  habits,  imbib- 
ing the  same  love  of  ease,  and  the  same  aversion  to  manual  labor, 
and  the  same  contempt  for  manual  laborers,  as  do  their  far  more 
wealthy  and  aristocratic  school-fellows. 

Leaving  out  of  sight  the  five  younger  children,  we  shall  now  give 
our  undivided  attention  to  the  eldest  son  of  this  poor  laborer. 

After  years  of  study  he  at  length  completes  his  course  at  the  Lin- 
coln High  School,  acquitting  himself  with  great  honor,  amidst  the 
cordial  congratulations  of  professors  and  school  directors,  and  elicit- 
ing the  vociferous  applause  of  the  admiring  multitude.  We  may  im- 
agine we  see  his  poor  old  father  crouching  on  the  outskirts  of  the 
crowd,  feasting  his  eyes  upon  an  occasional  glimpse  of  his  boy,  but 
not  daring  to  approach  him  because  he  has  no  clothes  fit  to  be  seen 
on  such  an  occasion  ;  doubtless  that  father  is  picturing  to  himself  a 
brilliant  future  for  his  boy.  He  is,  perhaps,  looking  forward  to  the 
time  when  he  shall  be  a  governor,  a  senator,  or  possibly  President 
of  the  United  States.  Very  likely,  too,  he  fancies  that  in  his  declin- 
ing years  he  shall  be  able  to  look  to  his  son  for  that  assistance  and 
support  which  his  own  exhausted  means  may  then  refuse  to  afford 
him.  But  alas  !  how  baseless  are  all  these  castles  in  the  air.  The 
day  after  quitting  school  the  young  man  finds  himself,  for  once, 
thrown  on  his  own  unaided  resources.  His  father  says  to  him  : 
11  Well,  my  boy,  I  have  been  a  long  time  struggling  with  pov- 
erty and  want  in  order  that  you  might  become  educated.  You 
see  that  both  your  mother  and  I  are  in  rags,  and  that  handsome 
suit  which  you  now  wear  is  yet  to  be  paid  for.  You  now  have 
a  fortune  in  your  education,  and  hereafter  you  must  learn  to  shift 
for  yourself,  and,  if  possible,  lend  a  helping  hand  from  time  to 
time  to  the  support  of  your  younger  brothers  and  sisters." 

Thus  situated,  the  young  man,  probably  for  the  first  time  in  his 
whole  life,  asks  himself  seriously  the  question:  What  business  he  is 
going  to  follow.  A  more  appropriate  question  would  be,  What 
business  can  he  follow?  There  he  stands  in  the  midst  of  a  great 
bustling  city,  without  a  cent  of  money  at  his  command  ;  without 
friends,  without  occupation,  and  without  the  necessary  qualificn- 


62  "  Poison  Drops'"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

tions  for  any  earthly  employment  within  his  reach.  Probably  his 
first  effort  will  be  to  find  a  position  as  clerk  in  some  bank  or  other 
business  establishment ;  but  he  soon  learns  that  these  positions  are 
all  filled  by  the  sons  of  wealthy  or  influential  parents.  Occasionally 
he  meets  a  former  schoolmate,  discharging  the  duties  of  some  cov- 
eted place,  but,  on  inquiry,  he  learns  that  he  has  obtained  his  position 
at  the  instance  of  a  wealthy  father  or  an  influential  friend.  Failing 
in  everything  else,  he  at  length  seeks  for  copying  as  a  means  of  earn- 
ing bread.  He  gets  hold  of  a  city  directory  and  makes  a  list  of  the 
names  and  locations  of  all  the  law  offices  in  the  city.  He  then  goes 
from  office  to  office  in  quest  of  the  only  work  he  really  knows  how 
to  do.  But  everywhere  he  is  forestalled  ;  everywhere  he  is  doomed 
to  disappointment.  On  every  hand  he  meets  young  men  and  boys 
similarly  situated,  and  making  similar  fruitless  efforts  to  raise  a  few 
climes  with  which  to  stave  off  starvation.  Already  the  boy  has  spent 
weeks  in  an  earnest  but  vain  endeavor  to  find  work  as  a  copyist.  In 
the  meantime  he  has  been  living  partly  on  his  old  father  and  partly 
on  what  he  could  pick  up  at  the  free-lunch  tables.  Seeing  the  son's 
extreme  embarrassment,  the  father  perhaps  suggests  to  him  that,  in- 
asmuch as  he  has  been  disappointed  in  everything  else,  he  had  bet- 
ter come  and  help  him  lay  down  those  cobble-stones  on  Battery  street, 
where  he  can  at  least  earn  money  enough  to  buy  victuals  and  clothes. 
But  alas  !  his  hands  are  wholly  unused  to  toil,  and,  what  is  infinitely 
worse,  he  has  been,  as  we  before  said,  so  trained  up  as  to  despise  both 
manual  labor  and  manual  laborers.  He  would  be  ashamed  for  one 
of  his  school  companions  to  even  meet  him  walking  the  street  in  com- 
pany with  his  own  father,  because  of  the  old  man's  horn-like  palms 
and  his  laborer's  dress ;  so  that,  even  if  he  knew  how  to  work,  still, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  was  only  the  other  day  that  he  finished  his 
educational  course  with  so  much  eclat  and  amidst  such  a  shower  of 
bouquets  as  rained  around  him  from  the  fair  hands  of  San  Francisco's 
wealth  and  beauty,  is  it  to  be  expected  that  he  is  now  going  to  heave 
cobble-stones  on  a  public  street  here,  under  the  very  shadow  of  his 
alma  mater,  to  be  twitted  and  jeered  at  by  those  who  envied  him  the 
literary  honors  with  which  he  came  loaded  from  the  Lincoln  school  ? 
No,  no  ;  that  is  utterly  impossible  ;  propose  anything  but  that.  Yet, 
says  he,  something  must  be  done,  and  that  soon  ;  I  must  have  clothes, 
and  I  must  have  bread  ;  the  world  owes  me  a  living,  and  I  intend  to 
have  it.  Thus  saying,  he  turns  his  back  upon  his  humble  and  des- 
titute home,  and  betakes  himself  again  to  perambulating  the  streets, 
ready  for  any  desperate  turn  in  events  that  promises  him  money. 
Let  the  reader  pause  here  and  ask  himself  the  question,  What  is 


A  Voice  from  San  Quentin.  63 

there  to  save  this  youth  from  becoming  a  pest  to  society,  a  disgrace 
to  his  old  father  and  mother,  and  finally  a  convicted  felon,  doomed 
to  serve  the  State  within  penitentiary  walls?  Perhaps  it  will  be 
claimed  that  the  bare  recollection  of  his  newly  acquired  literary 
honors,  and  the  fear  of  losing  the  esteem  of  those  who,  the  other 
day,  so  vociferously  applauded  his  youthful  oratory  and  threw  at  his 
feet  such  a  profusion  of  flowers,  ought,  of  itself,  to  be  sufficient  to 
shield  him  from  temptation's  harm.  But,  unfortunately,  those 
withered  flowers  will  not  serve  for  food,  nor  can  he  make  clothes 
either  of  approving  smiles  or  shouts  of  applause.  But  can  it  be 
possible,  you  say,  that  one  so  young,  so  intelligent,  and  so  well  edu- 
cated has  no  respect  for  the  law?  Why,  sir,  if  you  talk  to  him 
about  respecting  the  law  he  will  laugh  you  to  scorn.  Who  is  it  that 
respects  the  law,  he  will  say,  except  just  so  far  as  the  law  subserves 
his  purposes?  Have  we  not  laws  against  bribery ?  And  yet  do  not 
even  our  law-makers,  on  election  days,  send  out  their  dirty  minions 
with  money  in  their  pockets  with  which  to  buy  their  way  into  the 
very  halls  of  legislation  ?  Are  not  seats  in  the  United  States  Senate 
sometimes  bought  with  gold?  And  does  not  even  the  election  of  a 
United  States  President  often  depend  more  upon  successful  lying, 
frauds,  and  bribery,  than  upon  the  people's  honest  votes?  Then 
why  prate  to  me  about  the  sanctity  of  the  law  when  the  very  men 
who  make  the  laws  trample  them  unceremoniously  under  their  feet 
whenever  it  suits  their  purposes?  But,  you  will  say,  if  this  youth 
has  no  regard  for  human  law,  surely  he  cannot  be  wholly  indifferent 
to  the  laws  of  God.  Be  not  so  fast,  my  dear  sir.  Have  you  for- 
gotten that  the  boy  was  educated  in  our  public  schools,  where  it  is 
a  criminal  offence,  punishable  by  a  forfeiture  of  all  interest  in  the 
public  school  moneys,  to  even  mention  the  subject  of  religion  in  the 
hearing  of  a  pupil  ?  And  do  you  know  that  there  is  no  such  pro- 
hibition against  inculcating  the  horrible  doctrines  of  atheism  in  these 
schools?  That  many  of  our  public-school  teachers  are  avowed 
atheists,  who  believe  neither  in  God  nor  devil ;  neither  in  hell  nor 
heaven  ;  and  that  our  young  hero  is  a  firm  believer  in  these  dismal 
and  diabolical  doctrines?  Very  true,  you  say ;  I  knew  very  well 
that  no  religion  was  allowed  to  be  taught  in  the  public  schools,  but 
then  why  did  not  his  father  and  mother  teach  him  religion  at  home? 
We  first  answer  the  question  by  asking  another,  and  it  is  this : 
How  do  you  know  that  his  parents  themselves  had  any  well  defined 
notions  of  religion,  or,  in  fact,  any  religion  at  all?  If  they  had 
firmly  believed  in  the  teachings  even  of  that  natural  religion  which 
an  Almighty  hand  has  written  in  indelible  characters  on  every  human 


64  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

heart,  they  surely  would  never  have  consented  to  surrender  to  the 
public  at  large  the  right  to  select  the  teachers,  and  in  all  essential 
particulars  to  shape  the  mental  and  moral  as  well  as  the  physical 
destinies  of  their  child. 

But  suppose  that  his  parents  were  in  every  other  particular  real 
models  of  perfection,  both  in  their  professions  and  in  their  practices 
of  religion,  was  it  to  be  expected  that  he,  their  son,  would  accept 
religious  instruction  from  them  ?  Are  not  they  illiterate,  and  is  not 
he  educated  ?  And  shall  wisdom  take  lessons  from  ignorance  ?  Has 
he  not  learned  to  despise  them  both  for  their  poverty  and  their  sim- 
plicity ?  Can  it  be  doubted  that  even  the  sacrifices  which  they  made 
in  his  behalf;  that  the  very  patches  with  which  they  mended  their 
old  garments,  in  order  that  he  might  be  handsomely  dressed  ;  that 
the  very  toils  and  hardships  which  have  wrinkled  their  brows,  soiled 
their  features,  and  imparted  the  bony  touch  to  their  palms,  in  order 
that  he  might  learn  to  lead  a  life  of  ease  and  freedom  from  manual 
labor,  are,  on  his  part,  requited  with  coldness  and  contempt?  And 
after  learning  to  despise  his  parents,  is  it  at  all  likely  that  he  would 
profit  either  by  their  religious  instruction  or  their  praiseworthy  ex- 
ample? No,  no;  their  religion,  just  like  their  toilsome  lives  and 
their  old  clothes,  may  be  good  enough  for  them,  but  to  an  educated 
young  man  like  himself  it  is  only  a  bundle  of  cumbersome  and  use- 
less rubbish,  and  he  will  have  none  of  it. 

Then,  since  our  young  hero  has  learned  to  respect  neither  the  laws 
of  man  nor  the  laws  of  God,  and  will  neither  be  directed  by  the 
good  counsels  nor  influenced  by  the  exemplary  lives  of  his  own 
father  and  mother,  where,  let  it  be  asked,  shall  we  look  for  the 
controlling  power  that  is  to  shape  his  future  destinies  ?  Just  follow 
him  as  he  hurries  along  yonder  busy  street  and  you  shall  see^  Al- 
ready he  is  in  company  with  half-a-dozen  of  his  late  school-mates, 
each  of  whom  has  a  tale  of  woe  and  disappointments  to  tell,  quite 
like  his  own.  Now,  for  the  first  time  since  leaving  school,  each  and 
all  of  these  boys  find  themselves  in  congenial  society.  They  feel 
that  the  world  cares  nothing  for  them,  and  they  care  nothing  for 
the  world.  They  all  have  empty  stomachs  and  seedy  clothes,  and 
there  is  not  money  enough  in  the  crowd  to  purchase  even  one  night's 
lodging  at  the  meanest  lodging-house  in  the  city. 

One  of  the  party  suggests  that,  having  failed  in  everything  else, 
he  has  an  idea  of  making  an  effort  to  get  a  position  as  dish-washer 
in  some  hotel,  or,  failing  in  that  also,  he  might  seek  employment  as 
stable-boy  to  clean  out  the  stalls  of  some  livery  stable.  The  major- 
ity of  his  companions,  however,  frown  down  the  proposition  with 


The  Political  State  as  a  Teacher  of  Morality.  65 

contemptuous  indignation,  and  our  hero  threatens  never  hereafter  to 
speak  to  the  low-bred  rascal  should  he  ever  again  be  guilty  of  ad- 
vancing a  proposition  so  far  beneath  the  dignity  of  an  educated  gen- 
tleman. In  order,  however,  to  put  at  rest  the  question  as  to  the  feas- 
ibility of  finding  even  that  kind  of  employment,  one  little  fellow,  the 
smallest  in  the  crowd,  puts  in  a  word  to  assure  his  companions  that 
there  is  not  enough  in  the  last  suggestion  to  be  worth  quarrelling 
about.  He  says  he  has  been,  for  the  past  three  days  and  a  good  part 
of  the  nights,  hunting  from  house  to  house,  both  in  public  hotels  and 
private  dwellings,  for  any  kind  of  light  work  such  as  boys  could  do, 
and  everywhere  he  has  found  the  field  already  occupied,  most  always 
by  Chinamen  ;  whereupon  they  all  agree  that  they  could  not  if  they 
would,  and  would  not  if  they  could,  enter  into  successful  competi- 
tion with  Chinamen  for  the  honor  of  discharging  the  menial  duties 
of  either  stable  boys  or  kitchen  servants. 

At  this  particular  juncture  one  of  the  party  suggests  that  his  old 
widowed  aunt  has  $500  in  gold  twenties  buried  under  her  barn  floor, 
and  that  he  knows  just  where  to  find  the  cash.  They  can  get  this 
money  and  nobody  but  themselves  need  be  any  the  wiser  for  it.  He 
says  she  has  plenty  without  that,  and  she  is  such  a  stingy  old  hag 
that  it  would  be  serving  her  just  right  for  them  to  go  and  relieve  her 
of  that  five  hundred.  We  do  not  propose  to  follow  this  little  band 
of  young  hoodlums  farther  for  the  present,  but  if  any  friend  of  our 
present  public-school  system  can  discover  any  motive  which  will 
deter  from  crime  and  preserve  from  the  penitentiary  any  one  of  the 
hundreds  upon  hundreds  of  our  city's  youths,  whose  education  and 
situation  in  life  differ  in  no  essential  particular  from  that  of  the  boys 
just  above  described,  he  will  by  pointing  out  such  a  motive  unques- 
tionably confer  a  great  and  lasting  benefit  both  on  the  rising  genera- 
ation  and  on  society  at  large.  From  the  fate  of  this  eldest  boy  of 
our  poor  laborer  we  shall  leave  the  reader  to  guess  the  doom  which 
awaits  his  younger  brothers  and  sisters. 


GHAPTEK  XL 

THE   POLITICAL   STATE   AS   A  TEACHER   OF   MORALITY. 

SECTION  1702  of  our  California  School  Law  provides,  among 
other  things,  that  "  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  all  teachers  to  endeavor 
"  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  the  pupils  the  principles  of  mo- 
"  rality." 


66  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

But  just  here  the  question  arises,  "  What  is  morality  ?  "  And  how 
is  a  teacher  to  know  what  it  is  that  he  or  she  is  required  to  teach  in 
order  to  comply  with  this  requirement  of  the  statute? 

The  immortal  Washington  has  said  :  " Let  usiuith  caution  indulge 
u  the  supposition  that  morality  can  be  maintained  'without  relig- 
"  ion."  But  if  morality  cannot  be  maintained  without  religion,  then 
how  is  it  possible,  we  would  inquire,  for  the  teacher  to  inculcate  the 
principles  of  morality  without  inculcating  the  principles  of  religion? 
But  the  principles  of  religion  are  understood  by  the  Jews  differently 
from  what  they  are  by  the  Christians,  and  by  the  Roman  Catholics 
differently  from  what  they  are  by  Protestants,  by  the  Episcopalians 
differently  from  what  they  are  by  the  Presbyterians,  by  the  Presby- 
terians differently  from  what  they  are  by  the  Unitarians,  and  by  those 
who  reject  the  authority  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  differ- 
ently from  what  they  are  by  either  Jews  or  Christians  of  any  denom- 
ination whatever. 

Then  how  is  it  possible  for  the  State  to  require  the  teaching  of 
morals  in  the  public  schools  without  requiring  as  the  basis  of  such 
teaching  the  inculcation  of  religious  principles,  such  as  are  necessa- 
rily antagonistic  to  the  conscientious  convictions  of  the  parents  of 
at  least  a  portion  of  the  children  attending  these  schools  ?  It  is  true 
we  hear  a  great  deal  about  the  "  broad  principles  of  common  mo- 
u  rality"  and  of  a  common  religion,  but  we  have  never  yet  had  the 
good  fortune  to  find  anybody  who  was  able  to  give  a  definition  of 
this  common  morality  or  common  religion  to  the  perfect  satisfaction 
of  any  one,  except  perhaps  it  was  the  self-conceited  author  of  such 
definition. 

A  certain  professor  of  our  State  Normal  School,  to  whom  we  not 
long  ago  addressed  an  open  letter,  (which,  by  the  way,  we  believe 
has  never  been  answered,)  in  an  address  of  his  which  was  published 
in  the  May  number  of  the  Defender,  1881 ,  took  the  ground  that  "the 
ethics  of  the  Ten  Commandments  and  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
are  as  absolutely  unsectarian  as  the  law  of  gravitation."  Now  to 
assume  that  the  Commandments  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
are  absolutely  unsectarian  is  to  assume  that  people  of  all  religious  sects 
or  denominations,  as  well  as  all  non-religionists,  understand  them 
in  the  same  sense,  and  accept  them  as  coming  with  the  same  author- 
ity and  having  the  same  binding  force. 

But  is  it  true  that  people  of  all  religious  denominations,  as  well 
as  non-religionists,  do  understand  either  the  Ten  Commandments  or 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  the  same  sense  ;  or  as  coming  with  the 
same  authority,  or  as  having  the  same  binding  force  ?  We  say  no  ! 


The  Political  State  as  a  Teacher  of  Morality.  67 

Most  emphatically  no.  Waiving  the  differences  in  the  various  trans- 
lations of  these  important  parts  of  the  Bible,  we  shall  proceed  at 
once  to  consider  some  of  the  various  and  conflicting  beliefs  which 
have  been  made  to  rest  for  their  foundation  either  upon  those  Ten 
Commandments  or  upon  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Take,  for  exam- 
ple, the  commandment,  "Remember  thou  keep  holy  the  Sabbath 
day,"  and  we  find  even  Christians  differing  widely  as  to  whether 
under  the  Christian  dispensation  the  keeping  holy  of  the  Sunday  is 
a  sufficient  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  that  commandment. 
As  an  illustration  of  this  fact  we  may  remark  that  the  leading  print- 
ing and  publishing  house  of  Oakland,  and  in  fact  one  of  the  foremost 
establishments  of  its  kind  on  the  Pacific  coast,  is  owned  and  run  by 
an  association  of  Christians  who  would  conscientiously  regard  it  as 
a  sin  to  do  unnecessary  work  on  a  Saturday ;  and  we  all  know  that 
pretty  much  our  entire  Jewish  population  entertain  a  similar  belief. 
But  not  only  do  our  people  differ  as  to  the  particular  day  which  is 
required  by  the  above  commandment  to  be  kept  holy,  but  they  differ 
also  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  keeping  it  holy.  Thus,  the  Catholic 
believes  that  unless  released  from  the  obligation  by  some  lawful  ex- 
cuse, such  as  distance,  sickness,  or  the  like,  he  should  sanctify  the 
Sunday,  in  part  at  least,  by  assisting  at  mass,  while  other  Christian 
denominations  recognize  no  such  obligation.  Some  Christians  be- 
lieve it  sinful  to  engage  in  hunting,  fishing,  or  almost  any  kind  of 
amusement  on  the  Sunday,  while  others,  equally  conscientious,  re- 
gard these  pastimes  as  harmless.  Then,  again,  a  large  number  of 
people  disbelieve  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and  conse- 
quently do  not  look  upon  the  commandment  to  keep  holy  the  Sab- 
bath day  as  having  any  binding  force.  We  here  state  these  different 
views  with  reference  to  the  above-quoted  commandment,  not  for  the 
purpose  of  discussing  the  question  as  to  which  are  right  and  which 
arc  wrong,  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  such  differences  exist ; 
and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  they  do  exist,  we  maintain  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  the  public-school  teacher  to  teach  said  commandment 
according  to  any  of  said  views  without  violating  Section  1672  of  our 
public-school  law,  which  declares  that  "  no  sectarian  or  denomina- 
tional doctrine  must  be  taught  therein."  Perhaps  we  shall  be  told 
that  the  commandments  should  be  taught  just  in  the  words  in  which 
we  find  them,  without  interpretation  or  comment.  But  let  us  see  for 
a  moment  how  this  would  work.  Here  is  a  ten-year-old  boy,  we 
will  suppose,  who  has  just  read  from  his  Bible  the  command,  "  Re- 
member thou  keep  holy  the  Sabbath  day."  The  boy  being  naturally 
of  an  inquiring  mind,  turns  to  his  teacher  and  asks  the  very  natural 


68  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

question,  "What  is  the  Sabbath  day?"  What  ought  the  teacher 
under  such  circumstances  to  say?  Ough  the  to  say,  I  don't  know  ; 
or,  I  am  not  allowed  to  tell  you,  because  to  tell  you  would  be  sec- 
tarian teaching?  To  such  an  answer,  the  boy  in  his  own  mind 
would  probably  reply,  "  Of  what  earthly  use  is  this  command  to 
keep  holy  the  Sabbath  day,  if  I  am  not  to  know  what  the  Sabbath 
day  is?"  And  suppose  that  the  boy,  still  pressing  his  inquiry,  asks 
the  further  question,  "  In  what  way  am  I  to  keep  the  Sabbath  holy? 
What  is  it  necessary  to  do,  and  what  necessary  to  abstain  from  doing 
in  order  to  obey  this  commandment?"  Must  the  teacher  again 
reply,  "  I  am  not  allowed  to  tell  you." 

If  anything  in  the  world  is  calculated  to  bring  both  the  teacher  and 
the  Bible  into  ridicule,  we  think  that  such  a  teaching  as  this  would 
surely  accomplish  that  result. 

We  do  not  propose  in  this  connection  to  discuss  the  question  as  to 
the  State's  right  to  enact  and  enforce  Sunday  laws ;  but  we  may  re- 
mark in  passing  that  it  appears  to  us  as  if  legislation  in  that  direction 
ought  to  be  limited  to  the  enactment  of  such  laws  as  have  for  their 
object  the  protection  of  citizens  in  the  uninterrupted  discharge  of 
what  they  believe  to  be  their  religious  duties,  and  not  such  as  may 
be  designed  to  compel  an  observance  of  the  Sunday  in  any  particular 
manner  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  those  thus  compelled.  We  think 
there  would  be  but  little  merit  in  a  man's  attending  church  on  a 
Sunday,  not  for  the  love  of  God,  but  for  the  love  of  the  money  which 
he  might  have  to  pay  as  a  fine  for  his  failure  to  attend.  Persecutions 
against  conscience  may  make  hypocrites,  but  never  genuine  converts 
to  the  doctrines  thus  sought  to  be  enforced. 

With  reference  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  its  different  interpre- 
tations are  no  more  harmonious  than  are  those  of  the  commandment 
referred  to.  Even  people  professing  themselves  Christians  differ 
widely  as  to  whether  that  sermon  was  a  divine  or  only  a  human  ut- 
terance. The  Unitarians,  for  example,  not  believing  in  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  only  look  upon  that  sermon  as  a  human  production,  while 
other  Christian  denominations  accept  its  every  word  as  the  infallible 
teaching  of  infinite  wisdom  ;  so  that  the  teacher  cannot  undertake  to 
tell  his  pupil  in  the  public  school,  after  reading  to  him  that  sermon, 
whether  he  is  to  accept  it  as  the  word  of  God  or  only  as  the  word  of 
a  man,  without  again  invading  the  realms  of  denominational  teach- 
ing. And  all  will  admit  that  there  is  an  infinite  difference  between 
the  weight  to  be  attached  to  the  language  of  an  All-wise  God  and 
even  the  wisest  utterances  of  a  mere  man  when  giving  expression  to 
the  deductions  of  his  own  finite  and  feeble  reason.  Then,  again,  as 


The  Political  State  as  a  Teacher  of  Morality.  69 

it  is  with  the  interpretation  of  the  commandments  so  it  is  with  the 
interpretation  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  There  are  many 
passages  in  that  sermon  which  are  very  differently  construed 
by  people  of  different  religious  denominations.  For  example, 
it  is  there  said,  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  to  them  of  old,  Thou 
shalt  not  forswear  thyself,  but  shall  perform  unto  the  Lord  thine 
oaths  ;  but  I  say  unto  you,  Swear  not  at  all."  This  passage  is  by 
many  very  conscientious  people  interpreted  as  prohibiting  the  taking 
of  an  oath  as  a  witness  or  otherwise,  and  hence  they  never  swear, 
even  in  our  courts  of  justice,  but  affirm. 

Again,  it  is  said  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  as  read  in  the  Douay 
Bible,  "  If  thy  right  eye  scandalize  thee,  (or  as  the  new  version  has 
it,  '  cause  thee  to  stumble ,')  pluck  it  out  and  cast  it  from  thee,  for 
it  is  expedient  for  thee  that  one  of  thy  members  should  perish,  rather 
than  that  thy  whole  body  go  into  hell."  Now  suppose  that  some  pub- 
lic-school teacher,  when  reading  or  having  read  this  passage  to  his 
pupils,  should  be  asked  the  question,  "What  is  the  meaning  of 
hell?"  what  answer  could  he  give  which  would  not  be  sectarian  or 
denominational  in  its  character?  How  could  he  so  frame  a  defini- 
tion of  the  word  "  hell"  as  to  make  it  acceptable  both  to  the  Uni- 
versalist  and  the  Presbyterian,  or  the  Roman  Catholic? 

In  this  same  sermon  it  is  said  :  "  When  thou  fastest,  anoint  thy 
head  and  wash  thy  face  that  thou  appear  not  to  men  to  fast,  but  to 
thy  Father,  who  is  in  secret,  and  thy  Father  who  seeth  in  secret 
will  repay  thee."  Now,  if  the  public-school  teacher  were  asked  by 
a  pupil  whether  this  passage  was  to  be  taken  as  a  Divine  authority 
for  the  practice  of  fasting,  how  could  he  answer  this  question  with- 
out again  violating  that  section  of  the  Code  which  forbids  all  sec- 
tarian or  denominational  teachings  in  the  public  schools? 

Again,  Christians  of  some  denominations  interpret  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  as  authorizing  the  absolute  dissolution,  by  divorce,  of 
the  valid  bonds  of  matrimony  for  certain  causes,  so  as  to  allow  one 
of  the  divorced  parties' to  marry  again  during  the  life  of  the  other, 
while  other  Christians  maintain  that  all  such  second  marriages  dur- 
ing the  lives  of  both  the  divorced  parties  are,  morally  speaking, 
invalid  and  wrong. 

Indeed,  it  would  require  a  volume  to  point  out  all  the  different 
interpretations  which  have  been  placed  upon  the  Ten  Command- 
ments and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  How,  then,  is  it  possible  to 
teach  even  these  portions  of  the  Bible  in  the  public  schools  without 
teaching  sectarian  or  denominational  doctrine  ?  It  certainly  would 
not  be  called  teaching  in  any  other  educational  institution  in  the 


70  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

wide  world  (except  it  be  an  American  public  school)  to  simply 
cause  the  pupil  to  pronounce,  like  a  trained  parrot,  a  certain  form 
of  words  and  at  the  same  time  refuse  to  tell  him  the  meaning  of 
those  words. 

Our  conclusions,  then,  are  these,  namely  :  First ;  that  Washing- 
ton was  right,  when  he  said:  "  Let  us  with  caution  indulge  the 
supposition  that  morality  can  be  maintained  without  religion." 
Second ;  that  the  State  cannot  teach  morality  without  teaching 
religion  as  its  foundation.  Third  ;  that  the  State  cannot  teach  either 
morality  or  religion  without  either  establishing  a  new  religious 
denomination,  or  else  teaching  it  as  it  is  taught  by  some  one  of  the 
existing  denominations.  Fourth  ;  that  the  State  can  neither  teach 
religion  as  it  is  now  taught  by  any  existing  denomination,  nor  as  it 
might  be  taught  by  a  State-begotten  denomination,  without  a  fatal 
infringement  upon  the  doctrine  of  religious  liberty  ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, the  true  and  proper  business  of  the  State  is  not  to  teach  nor 
to  pay  for  teaching  either  morality  or  religion,  but  to  foster  and 
•encourage  the  teaching  of  both,  by  carefully  and  scrupulously 
guarding  and  protecting  the  equal  rights  of  all  citizens  to  worship 
God  and  to  educate  their  children  according  to  the  dictates  of  their 
own  consciences. 

We  say,  let  the  State  neither  undertake  to  teach  nor  to  pay  for 
the  teaching  of  morality  or  religion,  because  it  is  impossible  to  teach 
a  State  morality  without  teaching  a  State  religion,  and  it  is  impos- 
sible to  teach  a  State  religion  without  the  destruction  of  the  religious 
liberty  of  the  citizen.  Should  the  State  ever  assume  the  burden 
of  paying  for  religious  teaching,  its  next  step  would  logically  be  to 
assume  the  right  to  say  what  that  religious  teaching  should  be.  It 
is  in  order  to  make  it  harmonize  with  the  principles  here  asserted 
that  the  seventh  proposition  of  our  platform  is  so  framed  as  to 
allow  every  parent,  whose  child  is  entitled  to  receive  a  secular  edu- 
cation at  public  expense,  to  select  the  school  wherein  that  secular 
education  shall  be  given,  so  that  if  in  obedience  to  conscience  he 
elect  so  to  do,  the  parent  may  without  cost  to  the  State  secure  for 
such  child  a  moral  and  religious  training  at  the  same  time  that,  at 
the  State's  expense,  it  is  receiving  its  secular  training. 

In  order  to  do  this,  we  see  no  practical  way,  except  to  pay  the 
teacher,  not  according  to  the  time  he  is  employed  in  teaching,  but 
according  to  his  success  in  imparting  to  his  pupils  secular  knowl- 
edge— the  only  kind  of  knowledge  for  which  (as  we  believe)  the 
State  can  venture  to  pay  without  ultimate  danger  to  the  principles 
of  religious  liberty.  We  can  see  no  more  objection  to  the  State's 


The  Political  State  as  a  Teacher  of  Morality.  71 

paying  a  religious  teacher  according  to  results  for  imparting  secular 
knowledge  to  a  child  which  has  to  be  educated  at  public  expense 
than  there  would  be  in  its  paying  a  religious  stone-cutter  by  the  job 
for  dressing  a  certain  quantity  of  building  stone  to  be  used  in  the 
erection  of  a  public  building. 

If  two  stone-cutters  are  working  by  the  piece  for  the  Government, 
and  one  of  them  works  and  curses,  while  the  other  works  and 
prays,  we  can  see  no  good  reason  why  the  man  who  prays  should 
get  less  pay  for  his  work  than  does  the  man  who  curses,  for  work 
of  precisely  the  same  quality  and  quantity.  So,  likewise,  if  there 
be  two  teachers  working  by  the  job  for  the  Government  in  the 
business  of  teaching  children  to  read,  write,  and  cipher,  and  if  one 
of  them  should  teach  Tom  Paine's  "Age  of  Reason"  as  a  reading 
book,  scoff  at  everything  which  Christians  regard  as  sacred,  and 
finally  complete  his  work  by  turning  over  to  the  State  a  score  of 
infidel  scholars,  perfect  in  reading,  writing,  and  arithmetic,  while 
the  other  uses  the  Bible  as  a  class-reader,  speaks  reverently  of  God 
and  religion,  and  eventually  graduates  from  his  school  some  twenty 
Christian  gentlemen,  perfect  masters  of  the  three  R's,  would  there 
be  any  good  reason  why  the  first-named  teacher  should  be  paid  for 
his  secular  teaching  and  the  other  get  nothing  for  his? 

In  the  cases  supposed  we  would  ask  the  State  to  pay  nothing  for 
inculcating  the  principles  of  Tom  Paine,  and  nothing  for  teaching 
the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  but  in  each  case  we  would  have  the  teacher 
paid  for  teaching  his  pupils  how  to  read  without  regard  to  the  fact 
that  in  one  case  they  had  used  Paine's  "Age  of  Reason,"  and  in  the 
other  case  the  Bible  as  a  class-book.  And  we  would  do  this,  not  be- 
cause we  claim  that  there  is  any  comparison  between  the  writings  of 
Tom  Paine  and  the  Bible,  but  because  we  are  opposed  to  having  the 
State  step  between  the  parent  and  the  child  in  a  matter  of  so  much 
importance  as  that  which  concerns  the  child's  education  touching  re- 
ligious subjects. 

If  we  recognize  the  State  in  its  political  capacity  as  having  the 
right  to  decide  for  us  and  for  our  children  as  to  the  relative  merits 
of  the  Bible  and  Tom  Paine's  "Age  of  Reason"  as  class-books,  we 
virtually  agree  to  stand  by  its  decision  ;  and  for  a  Christian  to  agree 
to  stand  by  its  decision  would,  in  effect,  be  to  agree  to  apostatize  from 
his  faith  whenever  the  State  demands  such  a  sacrifice. 

To  reiterate  our  position,  the  principle  for  which  we  are  contend- 
ing is  not  that  the  political  State  ought  to  enforce  the  teaching  of  some 
particular  kind  of  religion,  or  any  religion  at  all,  but  that  it  ought  to 


72  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

leave  parents  perfectly  free  to  obey  the  dictates  of  their  own  con- 
sciences in  that  regard. 

It  has  sometimes  been  suggested  that  the  plan  we  propose  might  en- 
able the  teacher  to  proselytize  his  pupils  to  his  own  faith  against  the 
will  and  consciences  of  their  parents.  To  this  suggestion  we  reply 
that  one  of  the  very  strongest  arguments  in  favor  of  this  plan  is  that  it 
would  place  in  the  hands  of  the  parents  of  each  child  the  very  best  pos- 
sible safeguard  against  such  proselytizing.  The  safeguard  to  which 
we  allude  is  found  in  the  fact  that,  upon  the  very  first  intimation  of  any 
such  proselytizing,  the  parent  could  and  would  withdraw  his  child 
from  school  and  thereby  diminish  the  teacher's  pay.  In  that  regard 
the  proposed  system  would  be  infinitely  superior  to  the  present  one  ; 
for  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that,  notwithstanding  the  statutory  law  for- 
bidding the  teaching  of  sectarian  doctrines  in  the  public  schools,  yet 
whenever  the  teachers,  the  school  directors,  and  a  majority  of  the  pub- 
lic in  any  given  locality  have  a  leaning  in  favor  of  or  against  any  given 
sect,  that  fact  is  pretty  sure  to  make  itself  felt  in  the  public-school 
room,  either  in  the  books  used  or  the  instruction  given.  Under  such 
circumstances,  the  teacher  has  everything  to  gain  and  nothing  to  lose 
by  overriding  the  law  and  the  rights  of  those  belonging  to  the  un- 
popular creed,  in  obedience  to  the  wishes  of  the  more  popular  sect, 
at  whose  will  and  pleasure  he  holds  his  position  and  draws  his  sal- 
ary. Under  the  plan  which  we  propose,  the  teacher  or  principal 
of  each  school,  being  master  of  his  own  time  and  the  author  and 
architect  of  his  own  discipline,  could  easily  adjust  matters  in  such 
a  way  as  to  give  moral  and  religious  instructions  to  the  children  of 
such  parents  as  might  so  desire  without  any  encroachment  upon  either 
the  time  or  the  religious  prerogatives  of  pupils  belonging  to  a  differ- 
ent faith  or  to  no  faith  at  all.  In  proof  of  this  we  need  but  to  look 
around  us  right  here  in  the  cities  of  Oakland  and  San  Francisco,  where 
there  are  scores  and  scores  of  private  schools  being  taught,  in  some 
instances  by  Presbyterians,  in  others  by  Congregationalists,  fn  others 
by  Methodists,  in  others  by  Roman  Catholics,  etc.,  and  in  pretty 
nearly,  if  not  quite,  all  of  these  schools  there  are  pupils  whose  parents 
belong  some  to  one  creed  and  some  to  another,  and  some  to  no  creed 
whatever,  and  there  are  classes  in  which  denominational  doctrines  are 
taught  to  those  children  whose  parents  desire  it  without  the  least  in- 
terference with  others  whose  parents  are  of  a  different  way  of  thinking. 

We  frequently  hear  of  troubles  and  contentions  in  the  public  schools, 
though  pretendedly  non-sectarian,  because  of  the  sectarian  teachings 
therein  practised,  in  defiance  both  of  the  statutory  law  and  of  the  rights 


The  Author  Interviewed  on  the  School  Question.  73 

of  parents  and  children,  while  in  schools  professedly  denominational 
we  seldom  or  never  hear  of  any  such  complaint. 

The  reason  of  this  difference  is  obvious.  In  the  former  case  the 
teacher  is  not  amenable  to  the  parents  of  his  pupils,  but  in  the  latter 
he  is. 

We  want  no  Board  of  Education,  sitting  in  judgment,  to  determine 
whether  certain  teachings  in  the  public  schools  are  antagonistic  to  the 
faith  of  some  of  the  parents  whose  children  attend  these  schools.  If 
parents  themselves  do  not  know  what  they  religiously  believe,  we  are 
at  a  loss  to  know  how  a  board  of  politicians,  called  school  directors, 
can  inform  them.  We  want  no  State  standard  for  either  morality  or 
religion.  If  any  one  desires  to  see  a  specimen  of  State  morals  and 
State  religion  as  taught  by  State  authority,  let  him  read  the  recent 
proceedings  of  the  California  State  prison  investigating  committee. 
In  the  course  of  those  proceedings  the  fact  was  revealed  that  certain 
convicts,  whose  terms  of  penal  service  for  crimes  of  which  they  stood 
convicted  were  about  expiring,  and  against  whom  other  criminal 
charges  were  awaiting  trial  in  the  courts,  found  in  their  moral  in- 
structor a  most  willing  and  efficient  adviser  and  assistant  in  their 
efforts  to  baffle  the  officers  of  the  law,  avoid  re-arrest,  and  thus  de- 
feat the  ends  of  justice.  Such  is  State  morality,  taught  under  State 
authority,  and  at  the  State's  expense. 


CHAPTEK  XH. 

THE  AUTHOR  INTERVIEWED  ON  THE  SCHOOL  QUESTION. 

THE  following  is  from  The  Oakland  (California)  Mirror  for 
December,  1881  : 

Last-  week  Mr.  Montgomery  returned  to  Oakland  from  San 
Diego,  where  he  has  recently  purchased  a  ranch,  and  was  soon 
called  upon  by  our  reporter  on  educational  matters,  who  informed 
him  that  Gen.  Eaton,  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education, 
had  recently  been  in  Oakland  and  stated  he  had  heard  in  Washing- 
ton of  an  anti-public-school  man  in  California  named  Zach.  Mont- 
gomery, and  that  he  should  like  to  know  more  of  him  and  his  pecu- 
liar views,  and  that  he  had  exacted  a  promise  from  him  (the 
reporter)  to  interview  this  odd  Californiau,  and  to  send  him  a  copy 
of  such  interview. 

"•  Sit  down,"  said  Mr.  Montgomery. 

The  reporter  returned  thanks  and  seated  himself,  with  pencil  and 
note-book  in  hand,  and,  after  learning  incidentally  that  his  hospita- 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


74  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

ble  host  was  a  native  of  Nelson  county,  Kentucky,  the  interview 
then  opened  vigorously  and  ran  as  follows : 

REPORTER.  Now,  Mr.  Montgomery,  have  you  any  objections  to 
answering  a  few  questions  relative  to  your  object  in  withdrawing 
from  the  legal  profession  and  devoting  yourself  to  the  agitation  of 
the  school  question  and  the  progress  which  that  agitation  is  making? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  None  in  the  world,  sir.  This  agitation  con- 
cerns the  public,  and  the  public  have  a  right  to  know  all  about  it. 

REPORTER.  Is  it  true  that  your  object  is  to  procure  a  division  of 
the  public-school  funds  upon  what  is  called  a  sectarian  basis,  upon 
a  plan  similar  to  that  once  proposed  by  Archbishop  Hughes,  of 
New  York? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  No,  sir,  it  is  not  true ;  and  I  will  further 
state  that,  while  I  am  a  firm  believer  in  the  doctrines  and  teachings 
of  my  own  church,  the  Catholic,  I  now  am,  and  always  have  been, 
utterly  opposed  upon  principle  to  the  State's  taxing  any  class  of  citi- 
zens to  pay  for  teaching  anybody's  children  any  kind  of  doctrines 
or  principles  touching  the  subject  of  religion,  either  pro  or  con,  when 
the  citizens  thus  taxed  or  any  of  them  do  not  believe  in  the  doctrine 
so  taught. 

REPORTER.  Will  you  be  good  enough,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
readers  of  The  Mirror,  to  give  me  a  brief  outline  of  your  true  po- 
sition on  this  educational  question  ? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  Certainly,  sir,  since  you  desire  it.  My 
views  in  brief  I  keep  as  standing  matter  on  the  last  page  of  my 
JReview,  the  Family's  Defender,  epitomized  in  the  shape  of  seven 
short  propositions,  which  are  substantially  as  follows  : 

I  maintain,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  cost  of  educating  children, 
just  like  the  cost  of  feeding  and  clothing  them,  is  a  debt  which  every 
parent  owes  to  his  own  children,  and  that  it  is  as  unjust  to  take  one 
man's  money  with  which  to  educate  the  children  of  another  who  is 
able  to  educate  them  himself  as  it  would  be  to  take  one  man's 
money  to  buy  victuals  and  clothes  for  children  whose  parents  have 
the  means  wherewith  to  feed  and  clothe  them.  Hence,  I  contend 
that  education,  at  public  expense,  ought  to  be  limited  to  those  chil- 
dren whose  parents  are  unable  to  educate  them.  I  further  contend 
that,  as  a  rule,  education,  when  at  public  expense,  should  be  re- 
stricted to  the  elementary  English  branches,  coupled  with  such  an 
industrial  education  as  will  fit  the  party  educated  to  earn  an  honest 
living.  I  believe,  also,  that  the  whole  business  of  teaching  school 
should  be  thrown  open  to  private  enterprise  and  free  competition, 
just  like  practising  law  or  medicine  or  running  a  shoe  factory  ;  and 
then  I  would  allow  every  parent  who  is  deemed  fit  to  be  the  guardian 
of  his  own  children  to  select  the  particular  school  wherein  they  are 
to  be  educated.  I  would  have  as  our  only  school  officers  one  or 
more  examiners,  either  elected  or  appointed  for  each  district,  whose 
duty  it  should  be  to  periodically  examine,  in  the  legally  appointed 
secular  branches,  all  such  pupils  as  are  being  taught  at  public  ex- 
pense, and  to  report  upon  the  value  of  the  teacher's  services  as  indi- 
cated by  the  progress  of  his  pupils,  so  that  he  might  be  paid  accord- 


The  Author  Interviewed  on  the  School  Question.  75 

ing  to  that  value.  I  would  have  no  questions  asked  as  to  whether  the 
teachers  were  Catholics,  Protestants,  Jews,  or  Free-thinkers ;  or 
whether,  in  addition  to  the  secular  training  given  at  public  expense, 
these  same  teachers  had,  either  gratuitously  or  at  private  expense, 
and  at  the  request  of  parents,  given  religious  instructions  to  any  or 
all  of  their  pupils. 

REPORTER.  By  limiting  education  at  public  expense  to  the  com- 
mon English  branches,  would  not  many  of  our  brightest  youths  be 
deprived  of  the  possibility  of  obtaining  such  an  education  as  is  at  all 
in  keeping  with  their  talents,  and  the  State  thereby  be  made  the 
loser  ? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  I  said, ;i  as  a  rule"  education,  when  at  pub- 
lic expense,  should  be  thus  limited,  but  most  general  rules,  you 
know,  have  their  exceptions ;  and,  in  this  case,  I  would  make  an 
exception  in  favor  of  such  youths  as  possess  extraordinary  talent  for 
any  particular  science,  coupled  with  a  corresponding  degree  of  merit. 

REPORTER.  But  where  and  how  could  you  draw  the  line  between 
those  parents  who  are  and  who  are  not  able  to  educate  their  children 
at  their  own  expense  ? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  There  may  be  many  ways  of  drawing  this 
line,  but  in  the  absence  of  a  better  way  I  would  suggest  that  the  law 
be  so  framed  as  to  require  every  parent  who  has  children  of  school 
age,  and  who  is  worth  a  given  sum  per  child  to  be  educated,  over 
and  above  his  debts  and  liabilities,  exclusive  of  property  exempt 
from  execution,  to  educate  his  own  children  at  his  own  expense,  and 
to  allow  all  parents,  worth  less  than  the  designated  sum,  to  have 
their  children  educated  at  the  public's  expense.  In  this  way  the 
assessor's  returns  could  be  made  to  settle  the  question  as  to  who  are 
and  who  are  not  able  to  educate  their  own  children. 

REPORTER.  Suppose  this  plan  were  to  be  adopted,  what  dispo- 
sition could  be  made  of  all  our  public-school  property? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  Why,  sir,  without  doubt  it  would  all  be  in 
immediate  demand  for  educational  purposes.  You  must  remember 
that  the  same  children  who  are  now  attending  school  would  still  have 
to  be  educated.  It  is  true  there  would  not  be  nearly  as  many  of  them 
F.tudving  the  so-called  higher  branches,  but  what  would  be  far  bet- 
ter, thousands  of  children  would  be  perfecting  themselves  in  spell- 
ing, reading,  writing,  and  arithmetic,  who  are  now  neglecting  these 
essential  branches  in  order  to  get  a  mere  smattering  in  drawing, 
music,  or  the  foreign  languages. 

REPORTER.  You  will  excuse  me,  Mr.  Montgomery,  but  I  do  not 
yet  see  how,  under  your  proposed  plan,  all  our  public-school 
grounds,  houses,  and  furniture  could  be  made  available.  All  these 
are  public  property,  while  your  plan  would  virtually  turn  over  the 
great  body  of  our  children  to  private  schools,  and  this,  it  seems  to 
me,  would  necessarily  leave  our  public-school  property  vacant. 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  I  was  just  going  on  to  explain  that,  under 
the  plan  suggested,  private  schools  would  be  vastly  multiplied  and, 
in  order  to  carry  on  these  private  schools,  school-grounds,  houses, 
and  furniture  would  be  absolutely  necessary,  so  that  the  public-school 


76  "Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

property  could  be  easily  rented  or  sold  to  private-school  educators. 
And  inasmuch  as  the  most  competent  and  successful  educators 
would  get  the  most  patronage,  they  are  the  persons  who  could  af- 
ford to  pay  the  highest  prices  for  this  public-school  property  ;  and, 
therefore,  they  are  the  ones  who  in  future  would  educate  our  chil- 
dren. 

REPORTER.  And  what  disposition  would  you  make  of  the  funds 
arising  from  the  rent  or  sale  of  our  school  property  ? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  I  would  have  the  rent  of  all  this  property,  or 
the  interest  on  the  money  arising  from  the  sale  of  it,  used  to  pay  for 
educating  in  the  proper  English  branches  all  such  children  as  could 
not  otherwise  get  such  education.  There  are  now  upwards  of 
$6,000,000  worth  of  public-school  property  belonging  to  this  State, 
and  there  is  scarcely  a  doubt  but  that  the  rent  of  this  property,  or 
the  interest  upon  its  value,  would  be  nearly,  if  not  quite,  sufficient 
to  give' to  every  child  in  this  State,  whose  parents  are  not  able  to 
educate  it,  a  far  better  education  than  can  now  be  obtained,  under 
the  present  system,  by  the  annual  expenditure  of  $3,000,000,  in  ad- 
dition to  the  use  of  this  $6,000,000  worth  of  school  property. 

REPORTER.  If  I  understand  you,  then,  your  opinion  is  that  the 
adoption  of  the  proposed  plan  would  save  to  the  people  of  this 
State  at  least  $3,000,000  per  annum  in  the  single  item  of  school 
taxes,  and  at  the  same  time  vastly  improve  the  educational  advan- 
tages of  the  rising  generation? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  exactly  my  position. 

REPORTER.  Do  you  find  many  persons  who  agree  with  you  in 
these  views  ? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  Why,  sir,  the  fact  is  I  seldom  find  a  man 
who  dissents  from  them,  when  he  understands  them.  As  an  evi- 
dence of  the  intrinsic  popularity  of  these  views  witness  the  over- 
whelming endorsement  they  received  after  full  discussion,  in  the 
old  Congregational  church  in  Oakland,  at  a  large  meeting  presided 
over  by  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  who,  as  is 
well  known,  used  his  utmost  endeavors,  even  as  a  presiding  officer, 
to  defeat  their  adoption.  Witness  also  the  fact  that  almost  every 
leading  clergyman,  both  of  Oakland  and  San  Francisco,  including 
upwards  of  twenty  Protestant  ministers  and  a  number  of  Jewish 
rabbis,  besides  many  of  the  prominent  officers  of  every  shade  of 
politics,  as  well  as  lawyers,  doctors,  and  thinking  men  in  all  the  va- 
rious walks  of  life,  have  signed  a  petition  asking  that  these  same 
views  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people  as  a  preliminary  step 
towards  so  changing  our  State  Constitution  as  to  make  it  harmonize 
with  them. 

REPORTER.  If  it  is  not  too  much  of  a  digression,  I  should  like  to 
know  what  you  think  of  the  fear  that  is  sometimes  expressed  on 
account  of  the  growth  of  Roman  Catholicism  in  this  country,  and 
its  supposed  antagonism  to  the  principles  of  liberty? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  Well,  sir,  I  will  tell  you  candidly  what  I  think 
about  that.  Should  the  Government  of  this  country  ever  fall  into 
the  hands  of  such  Catholics  as  endorse  the  present  public-school 


Battle  Ground  on  which  Educational  Question  must  be  Fought.  77 

system  other  denominations -may  well  tremble  for  their  liberty,  as 
you  can  readily  see.  This  system,  as  you  know,  rests  upon  the  as- 
sumption that  a  majority  of  the  people  have  a  right  to  determine 
whether  any,  and,  if  any,  what  kind  of  religion  shall  be  taught  in 
the  public  schools,  and  to  compel  the  minority  to  submit  to  that 
determination.  Now  let  us  suppose  that  this  majority  should  be 
composed  of  a  class  of  so-called  Catholics,  who  believe  in  this  mon- 
strous doctrine  that  in  educational  matters  the  minority  has  no  rights 
which  the  majority  is  bound  to  respect,  will  you  tell  me  what  is  to 
prevent  a  majority  composed  of  such  Catholics  as  these  from  forcing 
the  children  of  a  helpless  minority  of  Protestants  to  study  the  Cath- 
olic catechism  in  the  public  schools,  provided  that  by  so  doing  they 
can  make  themselves  popular  and  put  money  in  their  pockets  ? 

REPORTER.  Of  course  they  could  not  do  that  without  violating 
our  present  constitution. 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  Very  true  ;  but  written  constitutions  you  must 
remember  furnish  only  feeble  barriers  against  unwilling  majorities, 
and  that  for  two  reasons,  namely,  such  majorities  can  either  change 
the  existing  constitution  or  override  it  with  impunity. 

REPORTER.  Do  you  really  think  that  the  Catholics  of  whom  you 
speak,  even  if  they  had  the  power,  would  ever  so  use  that  power  as 
to  oppress  their  Protestant  neighbors  ? 

Mr.  MONTGOMERY.  Well,  sir,  you  might  trust  them,  but  I  could 
not ;  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  These  same  Catholics — if  I  may  call 
them  such — are  now  helping  to  use  exactly  this  same  power  for  the 
cruel  and  unjust  oppression  of  other  Catholics,  as  well  as  non-Catho- 
lics, who  do  not  believe  as  they  do  in  the  immaculate  character  of  the 
present  public-school  system,  and  I  can  scarcely  think  that  they 
would  deal  any  more  liberally  or  more  justly  with  Protestants, 
Jews,  or  Free-thinkers  than  they  are  now  dealing  with  their  co-re- 
ligionists, especially  when  by  so  doing  they  would  sacrifice  both  their 
popularity  and  their  self  interest.  It  is  true  that  they  can  find  no 
warrant  in  the  authoritative  teachings  of  their  church  for  forcing 
upon  non-Catholic  children  religious  teachings  which  are  repugnant 
to  the  consciences  of  their  parents ;  but  neither  can  they  find  there 
any  warrant  for  forcing  upon  the  children  of  either  Catholics  or  non- 
Catholics,  in  defiance  of  the  protesting  consciences  of  their  fathers 
and  mothers,  the  Godless,  vicious,  and  crime-breeding  system  of 
education  which  now  curses  our  land  from  the  shores  of  the  Atlantic 
to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific. 


CHAPTEE  XIH. 

CHE  GREAT  BATTLE  GROUND  ON  WHICH  THE  EDUCATIONAL  QUESTION  MUST 

BE  FOUGHT. 

IT  must  be  clear  to  every  thinking  mind  that  the  chief  reason 
why  the  present  anti-parental  and  crime-producing  public-school 
system  has  obtained  so  strong  a  hold  upon  the  country  is  to  be 


78  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

found  in  a  want  of  united  and  harmonious  action  on  the  part  of 
those  who  see  and  lament  its  pernicious  influence  over  the  rising 
generation,  but  differ  as  to  the  precise  thing  which  constitutes  the 
fundamental  evil  of  the  system,  and  consequently  they  equally 
differ  as  to  what  ought  to  be  the  remedy  for  said  evil.  For 
example  :  Many  honest  and  conscientious  people  believe  that  the 
great  wrong  committed  by  the  political  State,  through  its  public- 
school  system,  consists  in  its  prohibiting  the  reading  of  the  Bible 
in  the  public  schools,  while  many  others,  equally  conscientious 
and  equally  opposed  to  the  present  system,  believe  that  the  State 
is  right  in  forbidding  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools,  but  that 
it  is  wrong  in  allowing  "  Johnson's  Cyclopedia"  and  certain  other 
books,  believed  to  have  either  a  sectarian  or  a  partisan  bias,  to  be 
taught  in  these  schools.  Still  another  class  object  to  the  system, 
because  of  the  immoral  or  incompetent  character  of  many  of  its 
teachers,  or  because  of  the  objectionable  methods  of  teaching  in 
use  in  its  schools,  or  because  of  the  commingling  of  the  sexes,  or 
for  other  kindred  reasons. 

But  to  our  mind,  the  chief  vice  of  the  system  lies  in  its  usurpa- 
tion of  parental  authority,  and  in  its  attempting  to  do  for  each 
child,  through  political  agencies,  that  which  can  be  properly  done 
by  nobody  else  in  the  world,  except  by  its  own  father  and  mother. 
We  contend  that  this  usurpation  of  parental  authority  by  the  politi- 
cal State  is  the  main  trunk  out  of  which  naturally  grow  the  other 
evils  just  mentioned,  and  that,  until  this  parent  tree  be  rooted  up, 
we  shall  never  be  able  to  rid  our  country  of  its  poisonous  branches, 
or  their  bitter  and  deadly  fruits. 

The  question  which  we  are  discussing,  and  the  question  which 
we  urge  every  intelligent  citizen  to  consider,  is  not  whether  the 
Bible  ought  or  ought  not  to  be  read  in  school ;  nor  whether 
"Johnson's  Cyclopedia"  is  a  proper  book  for  school  libraries; 
nor  whether  a  particular  class  of  teachers  are  or  are  not  the  best 
adapted  to  school  work ;  nor  whether  the  commingling  of  the  sexes 
in  the  schools  has  a  moralizing  or  a  demoralizing  tendency  ;  nor 
whether  the  teaching  of  religion  and  the  physical  sciences  ought  or 
ought  not  to  go  hand  in  hand  ;  nor  whether  good  children,  who 
have  been  carefully  and  morally  trained  at  home,  ought  or  ought 
not  to  be  sent  to  the  same  school  with  the  vicious  and  depraved, 
with  the  view  of  reforming  the  latter.  That  there  is  a  wide  and  an 
honest  difference  of  opinion  amongst  the  American  people  as  to 
these  questions  no  candid  and  intelligent  citizen  will  deny.  And 
accepting  this  honest  difference  of  opinion  as  an  existing  fact,  the 


Battle  Ground  on  which  Educational  Question  must  be  Fought.  79 

question  which  we  now  propose  to  discuss  is  this :  Does  it  right- 
fully belong  to  the  political  State  to  determine  these  questions  for 
parents  and  children,  and  to  compel  them  to  submit  to  its  decision? 
If  the  political  State  has  the  right  to  decide  these  questions  for  par- 
ents, and  to  enforce  obedience  to  its  decisions,  even  as  against 
their  judgments  and  consciences,  then  it  necessarily  follows  as  a 
consequence  that  in  all  cases  of  conflict  between  the  judgment  of 
the  political  State  on  one  side  and  the  judgment  of  the  parent  on 
the  other,  touching  any  of  the  above-mentioned  questions,  it  becomes 
the  duty  of  the  parent  to  subject  his  own  judgment  to  the  judgment 
of  the  State.  For  surely  it  cannot  be  claimed  that,  where  the  State 
has  the  right  to  command,  the  citizen  has  the  right  to  disobey  the 
command.  But  in  cases  of  conflict  between  his  own  conscientious 
judgment  and  the  judgment  of  the  State  as  to  the  fitness  of 
teachers,  or  books,  or  school  companions,  etc.,  can  the  parent, 
without  moral  crime,  subject  his  own  judgment  to  that  of  the  State? 
Suppose,  for  example,  the  case  of  a  strictly  conscientious  Prot- 
estant parent  who,  by  the  use  of  all  the  lights  within  his  reach,  has 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  constant  presence  and  daily  reading 
of  the  Bible  in  the  school  is  one  of  the  indispensable  means  of  pre- 
serving the  moral  purity  of  his  child ;  of  protecting  it  against  what 
he  firmly  believes  are  the  dangerous  and  damnable  doctrines  of 
atheism  ;  and  of  preparing  it  for  a  life  of  virtue,  honor,  and  useful- 
ness in  this  world,  and  a  life  of  eternal  happiness  in  the  world  to 
come  ;  and  suppose  the  political  State,  in  the  exercise  of  its  judgment, 
forbids  the  Bible  to  be  read  in  its  schools,  can  such  a  parent, 
without  crime,  send  his  children  to  such  schools,  believing  in  his 
heart  that  by  doing  so  he  is  preparing  them  for  a  life  of  sin  and 
shame,  and  an  eternity  of  woe?  Be  it  remembered  that  we  are  not 
now  discussing  the  question  as  to  whether  the  Bible  is  or  is  not  a 
necessary  or  a  proper  book  for  daily  use  in  the  schools,  but  we  are 
discussing  the  proposition  as  to  the  State's  jurisdiction  to  decide  that 
question,  and  to  enforce  obedience  to  its  decision  as  against  the 
judgment  and  consciences  of  parents.  If  the  political  State  has  the 
legitimate  power  and  the  rightful  jurisdiction  to  make  a  binding  de- 
cision on  this  disputed  question,  then  whichever  way  it  decides  the 
question — whether  it  be  in  favor  of  or  against  the  use  of  the  Bible 
in  the  schools — its  decision  must  be  equally  binding.  For  the  power 
to  decide  a  disputed  question,  on  condition  that  it  be  decided  one 
particular  way  and  no  other,  simply  means  no  power  to  decide  the 
question  at  all.  Therefore,  if  the  State  has  a  rightful  jurisdiction 
over  this  question,  and  should  decide  to  teach  the  Bible  in  the  schools, 


8o  "  Poison  Drops'"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

to  the  children  of  parents  who  do  not  believe  in  the  Bible,  such 
parents  would  have  no  right  to  complain.  For  if  the  parental  judg- 
ment and  conscience  are  subordinate  and  ought  to  yield  to  the  State's 
judgment  and  conscience,  where  would  be  the  ground  for  complaint? 

Again,  if  the  State  may  rightfully,  and  without  trenching  upon 
the  doctrine  of  religious  liberty,  forbid  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  in 
the  schools,  to  the  children  of  parents  whose  judgments  and  con- 
sciences demand  such  teaching,  or  may  enforce  the  teaching  of  the 
Bible  to  the  children  of  those  whose  judgments  and  consciences  are 
opposed  thereto,  it  then  follows,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  the 
State  must  have  jurisdiction  to  decide  as  to  which  one  of  all  the 
various  versions  and  translations  of  the  Bible  is  the  correct  one.  In 
other  words,  it  must  have  jurisdiction  to  determine  which  one  of  the 
various  books  known  as  the  "  BIBLE  "  is  entitled  to  be  called  by  that 
name.  Not  only  that,  but  if  the  State  can,  without  encroaching 
upon  the  just  liberty  of  conscience,  decide  what  book  is  the  Bible, 
and  then  enforce  the  teaching  of  such  Bible  in  the  schools,  against 
the  judgments  and  consciences  of  the  parents  of  the  children  who 
are  so  taught,  it  must  also  have  jurisdiction  to  decide,  as  between 
conflicting  interpretations,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  various  texts 
of  the  Bible,  for  it  would  be  as  absurd  and  as  barren  of  good  results 
to  simply  teach  the  'words  of  the  Bible  to  a  child,  while  leaving  it 
in  ignorance  as  to  their  signification,  as  it  would  be  to  teach  the  same 
child  to  repeat,  in  a  parrot-like  manner,  the  words  of  its  arithmetic 
or  of  its  grammar,  while  allowing  it  to  grope  in  darkness  as  to  the 
real  scientific  meaning  which  those  words  were  intended  to  convey. 

But  if  the  State  has  the  rightful  jurisdiction  to  decide  pro  or  con 
upon  the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures,  and  also  to  interpret  them 
for  its  schools,  and  in  defiance  of  the  judgment  and  consciences  of 
parents  to  teach  the  Scriptures,  as  it  interprets  them,  to  the  rising 
generation,  does  not  this  of  itself  involve  the  right — within  the  limits 
of  its  educational  domain — to  establish  a  State  religion?  We  can 
see  no  escape  from  an  affirmative  answer  to  this  proposition.  In 
other  words,  we  maintain  that  it  is  impossible,  logically,  to  justify 
our  present  anti -parental  State-controlled  educational  system,  with- 
out the  maintenance  of  principles  which  would  justify  the  political 
State  in  establishing,  at  public  expense,  a  State  church,  and  teaching 
to  the  rising  generation  a  State  religion,  and  compelling  every  child 
to  learn  and  practise  such  teachings.  If  the  true  and  just  relations 
between  the  political  State  and  its  citizens  are  such  that,  in  settling 
the  question  as  to  the  kind  of  education  that  shall  be  given  to  the 
children  of  the  latter,  it  is  the  right  of  the  State  to  command  and 


Battle  Ground  on  which  Educational  Question  must  be  Fought.  8 1 

the  duty  of  the  parent  to  obey,  then  it  follows  that  if  we  were 
citizens  of  some  barbarous  country,  where  the  political  State 
requires  every  child  to  learn  and  practice  the  doctrine  of  snake-wor- 
ship, it  would  become  our  bounden  duty  to  allow  our  children  to  be 
taught  these  vile  and  revolting  doctrines. 

Here  again  we  insist  upon  its  being  borne  in  mind  that  we  are  not 
discussing  the  question  as  to  what  kind  or  whether  any  religion 
ought  or  ought  not  to  be  taught  to  children  ;  but  we  are  only  con- 
sidering the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  it  rightfully  belongs  to  the 
"political  State"  to  determine  that  question,  and  in  doing  so,  to 
override  the  judgments  and  consciences  of  the  fathers  and  mothers 
of  children. 

It  seems  to  us  that,  from  the  innermost  depths  of  every  human 
heart,  not  wholly  dead  to  the  noblest  impulses  of  man's  nature,  there 
rises  up  one  spontaneous  universal  protest  against  this  vile  and 
monstrous  usurpation  of  parental  authority  by  the  political  State. 
And  we  firmly  believe  that  the  only  thing  necessary  is  that  the  peo- 
ple of  this  country,  of  all  creeds  and  parties,  be  brought  fairly  and 
squarely  face  to  face  with  this  deadly  foe  to  their  liberties,  so  as  to 
see  the  horrid  monster  in  all  its  hideous  deformity,  and  that  they  will 
then  promptly  stamp  it  out  of  existence.  Therefore,  in  our  humble 
opinion,  the  true  and  proper  course  to  be  pursued  by  the  friends  of 
educational  reform  is  to  keep  prominently  before  the  people  as  the 
fundamental,  the  vital  issue,  this  question,  namely  :  Shall  the  parent 
or  the  political  State  determine  for  a  child  who  shall  be  its  teacher, 
its  companions,  and  what  books  it  shall  or  shall  not  study?  Let  all 
other  issues  be  made  subordinate  to  this.  As  long  as  we  make  our 
chief  fight  on  the  question  of  Bible  or  no  Bible,  religion  or  no  relig- 
ion, division  of  public-school  funds  or  no  division,  mixed  or  separate 
schools  for  girls  and  boys,  and  similar  questions  concerning  which 
men  will  differ — and  as  things  are,  naturally  and  honestly  differ — so 
long  will  there  be  contention  and  strife  amongst  the  real  friends  of 
educational  reform.  Each  of  these  contending  factions  is  willing  to 
see,  and  does  see,  the  evils  of  an  anti-parental  system  of  education 
when  that  system  strikes  at  his  oivn  rights,  as  he  understands  those 
rights ;  but  is  slow  to  see  the  same  evils  when  they  only  affect  the 
rights  of  his  neighbors,  who  choose  to  exercise  their  rights  in  a 
manner  different  from  himself. 

This  should  not  be  so.  If  we  expect  the  assistance  of  our  neigh- 
bors in  our  struggles  for  our  own  parental  rights,  we  must  be  will- 
ing to  assist  those  neighbors  in  securing  theirs.  And  we  must  not 
demand,  as  a  condition  precedent,  that  these  neighbors  shall  agree 


82  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

to  exercise  their  parental  rights  just  as  we  do  ours,  because  this 
would  be  as  intolerant  and  oppressive,  and  as  opposed  to  parental 
liberty,  as  is  the  present  public-school  system  ;  or  rather  it  would  be 
simply  a  new  application  of  the  same  system.  It  would  simply  be 
the  taking  of  the  martyred  victim  who  is  being  roasted  on  one  side, 
and  turning  the  other  side  to  the  fire. 

We  must  realize  the  fact  that  in  union  there  is  strength,  and  that 
we  can  only  have  union  by  being  just  and  liberal  towards  each  other. 
While  standing  firmly  by  our  own  rights  and  the  rights  of  our  chil- 
dren, we  must  realize  and  act  upon  the  fact  that  our  neighbors' 
rights  and  our  neighbors'  children  are  as  clear  to  them  as  ours  are  to 
us.  And  however  widely  mistaken  we  may  believe  our  neighbors 
to  be  in  their  manner  of  educating  their  children,  we  should  remem- 
ber that  it  is  not  our  business,  nor  our  right,  to  force  our  views  upon 
them  any  more  than  it  is  their  business  to  force  their  views  upon 
us.  It  is  not  for  their  children  but  for  our  own  that  we  shall  be 
called  upon  to  render  an  account  to  that  God  who  gave  them. 

If,  then,  we  would  work  for  union,  if  we  would  work  for  success 
in  the  cause  of  educational  liberty,  let  us  lay  aside  all  those  side 
issues  which  every  parent  should  settle  according  to  his  own  judg- 
ment and  conscience,  and  let  us  raise  aloft  the  broad  banner  of  par- 
ental rights  and  equal  educational  liberty,  without  distinction  of 
creed,  party ,  or  calling.  Under  this  banner  we  can  conquer  ;  under 
any  other  I  believe  we  shall  surely  fail. 


CHAPTEE  XIV. 

A    NON-SECTARIAN    PLATFORM    OF    EDUCATIONAL     PRINCIPLES    ALMOST   UNANI- 
MOUSLY  ENDORSED    BY   THOSE   WHO   HAVE    STUDIED    IT. 

PROPOSITIONS. 
I. 

Parents  are  bound,  by  the  law  of  Nature,  (each  according  to  his 
ability) ,  to  properly  feed,  clothe,  and  educate  their  own  children, 
and  unwilling  parents  should  be  compelled,  by  appropriate  legisla- 
tion, to  discharge  these  duties. 

II. 

It  is  a  public  duty  to  assist,  at  public  expense,  in  furnishing  the 
necessary  means  wherewith  to  properly  feed,  clothe,  and  educate 


A  non- Sectarian  Platform  of  Educational  Principles.       83 

children  whose  parents  are  unable  to  so  feed,  clothe,  and  educate 

them. 

III. 

No  citizen  of  this  State  should  ever  be  taxed  for  the  feeding, 
clothing,  or  educating  of  children — not  his  own — whose  parents  are 
amply  able  to  feed,  clothe,  and  educate  them. 

IV. 

All  such  parents  as  are  neither  mentally  nor  morally  unfit  to  have 
the  custody  of  children  are  entitled,  and  in  duty  bound,  to  select  for 
the  education  of  their  own  children  schools  wherein  they  believe  that 
neither  the  teachers,  the  associations,  nor  the  kind  of  instruction 
given,  will  seriously  endanger  either  their  health,  their  lives,  or  their 
morals,  but  will  best  promote  their  temporal  and  eternal  welfare. 

V. 

Neither  the  State,  nor  any  municipal  or  other  government  organized 
under  its  authority .  should  ever  force  upon  the  child  of  any  parent — not 
legally  adjudged  mentally  or  morally  unfit  to  discharge  the  duties  of 
the  parental  office — any  particular  teacher,  book,  or  system  of  relig- 
ious or  non-religious  instruction  against  the  conscientious  objections 
of  such  parent. 

VI. 

Tuition,  when  at  public  expense,  should  embrace  a  good  common 
English  and  business  education,  added  to  such  a  thorough  training  in 
one  or  more  of  the  mechanic  arts,  or  the  manufacturing,  domestic,  or 
productive  industries,  as  will  best  prepare  youth  for  the  practical 
business  of  self-support,  but  should  not  extend  to  the  merely  orna- 
mental or  more  abstruse  arts  or  sciences,  except  in  a  limited  class  of 
cases  (to  be  provided  for  by  law)  as  a  reward  for  exalted  merit,  when 
coupled  with  a  high  order  of  talent  and  a  special  aptitude  for  such 
arts  or  sciences. 

VII. 

The  whole  business  of  educating  and  training  the  young  should, 
like  other  professions,  be  open  to  private  enterprise  and  free  compe- 
tition :  Provided,  That  the  State  should  establish  and  maintain  such 
necessary  educational  institutions  as  private  enterprise  shall  fail  to 
establish  and  maintain  ;  and  every  parent  or  guardian  entitled  to 
have  his  or  her  child  or  ward  educated  at  public  expense  should 
select  for  such  purpose  his  own  school,  and  the  teacher  or  principal 
of  such  school  should  be  paid  periodical!}  for  teaching  such  pupil  a 


84  ^'PbtsoH  Drops"  hi  the  Federal  Senate. 

compensation,  the  maximum  of  which  shall  be  fixed  by  law,  which 
compensation  should  be  proportionate  to  the  progress  made  by  the 
pupil  during  such  period  of  tuition  in  the  legally  appointed  secular 
branches.  Said  progress  to  be  ascertained  by  examiners  duly  elected 
or  appointed  in  such  manner  as  may  be  provided  by  law ;  but  no 
religious  tuition  which  may  be  given  in  any  such  school  should  be 
at  public  expense  or  subject  to  the  supervision  of  said  examiners. 

HOW    INTELLIGENT    CITIZENS    OF    ALL     CLASSES     REGARD    THE     ABOVE     PROP- 
OSITIONS. 

The  friends  and  opponents  of  the  foregoing  propositions  held  a 
meeting  in  the  city  of  Oakland  on  the  evening  of  October  6,  1879, 
for  the  purpose  of  considering  their  merits.  In  referring  to  that 
meeting,  and  its  action  touching  said  propositions,  a  leading  Oakland 
daily,  the  Evening  Tribune,  in  its  issue  of  October  loth,  among 
other  things  said : 

u  A  large  audience  gathered  last  Monday  evening  at  the  old 
Congregational  church  building,  to  hear  the  Hon.  Zach.  Mont- 
gomery discuss  the  dements  of  the  Public-School  System  of  the 
United  States.  It  was  generally  expected  and  hoped  that  the 
Rev.  Horatio  Stebbins,  D.  D.,  of  San  Francisco,  would  be  present 
and  take  issue  with  the  views  advanced  by  Mr.  Montgomery,  but 
the  reverend  gentleman  did  not  put  in  an  appearance.  Fred.  M. 
Campbell,  State  Superintendent-elect,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Mont- 
gomery, presided.  *  *  In  support  of  the  two  principal  opin- 
ions, namely,  the  pernicious  influence  of  our  present  system  of  pub- 
lic instruction,  and  the  right  and  duty  of  the  parent  to  select  and 
control  the  education  of  the  child,  as  well  as  clothe  and  feed  it,  he 
advanced  seven  propositions,  which,  if  carried  out  practically,  he 
believed  would  prove  vastly  superior  to  the  present  system.  He 
was  frequently  plied  with  questions,  put  by  persons  in  the  audience, 
to  which  he  responded  with  alacrity.  A  vote  was  taken  on  the  several 
propositions  advanced  by  Mr.  Montgomery  to  ascertain  the  sense  of 
the  audience  in  regard  to  the  subject,  and  invariably  the  result  showed 
that  the  speaker  was  sustained  by  the  majority  of  his  hearers." 

As  another  evidence  of  the  intrinsic  popularity  of  the  foregoing 
platform  of  principles  it  may  be  stated  that  a  petition  asking  that  a  law 
be  passed  to  submit  said  platform  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  to  test  the 
sense  of  the  public  upon  the  question  of  so  amending  the  California 
State  constitution  as  to  bring  it  into  harmony  with  said  platform,  was 
endorsed  by  nearly  every  leading  citizen  of  the  cities  of  San  Francisco 
and  Oakland  who  examined  the  question.  Among  these  signers 
were  included  the  most  prominent  ministers  of  almost  every  religious 
denomination,  as  well  as  non-religionists  of  the  different  schools  of 


A  non- Sectarian  Platform  of  Educational  Principles.       $5 

thought.  Indeed,  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  amongst  these  signers 
was  the  Hon.  J.  F.  Swift,  the  able  and  distinguised  Republican 
nominee  for  Governor  of  California  in  this  year  of  our  Lord  1886. 
A  bill  was  introduced  in  the  California  State  Senate,  in  1880,  by 
Hon.  B.  F.  Langford,  providing  for  carrying  out  the  objects  of  said 
petition.  It  was  referred  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Education, 
came  back  with  a  divided  report,  was  placed  on  the  regular  files  of 
business,  but  the  session — being  by  the  constitution  restricted  to  sixty 
Jays — expired  by  limitation  before  the  bill  could  be  reached  for 
action.  It  is  a  well-known  fact,  however,  that  many  of  the  ablest 
and  most  influential  members  of  that  body  stood  ready  to  give  it 
their  cordial  support. 

The  following  are  but  a  few  of  the  prominent  and  influential  names 
appended  thereto,  to  wit : 

Hon.  JAMES  T.  FABLEY,  (U.  S.  Senator.  Hon.  E.  W.  McKiNsmv,  (Supreme  Judge.) 

Hon.  S.  B.  MoKEE,  (Supreme  Judge.)  Hon.  A.  M.  CRANE,  (Superior  Judge.) 

(Several  other  Superior  Judges.) 

Hon.  JOHN  B.  GLASCOCK,  (M.  0.)  Hon.  W.  W.  FOOTE,  (E.  B.  Commissioner.) 

Hon.  J.  F.  SWIFT.  Hon.  J.  A.  STANLEY. 

Dr.  S.  MERBITT.  F.  DELGEB. 

Bt.  Bev.  W.  I.  KIPP,  (Episc.  Bishop  of  Gal.)  Bev.  W.  A.  SCOTT,  (Presbyterian.) 

Bev.  J.  K  MCLEAN,  (Congregationalist.)  Bev.  G.  S.  ABBOTT,  (Baptist.) 

Bev.  0.  KENBICK,  (Campbellite  or  Christian.)  Bev.  L.  HAMILTON,  (Independent.) 

Bev.  THOS.  GUABD,  (Methodist.)  Bev.  J.  FUENDELING,  (Beformed  Ger.  Ch.) 

Bev.  F.  W.  FISCHEB,  (Evangelical  Ass'n.)  Bev.  G.  MuEHLSTEPH,(German  Lutheran,) 

And  fourteen  other  prominent  Protestant  clergymen  of  San  Francisco  and  Oakland  belonging  to 
the  different  denominations  just  enumerated. 

Also  Most  Bev.  J.  S.  ALEMANY,  of  San  Francisco,  and  several  other  Roman  Catholic  Clergymen. 

Also  Dr.  D.  H.  VIDAVEB  and  Dr.  A.  J.  MESSING,  Jewish  rabbis. 

Rev.  Doctor  John  LeConte,  while  president  of  the  California 
State  University,  an  eminent  Presbyterian  divine,  after  reading  the 
author's  views  as  expressed  in  "  Poison  Fountain" — without  fully 
committing  himself  to  these  views — wrote  as  follows  : 

"  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  gradual  impairment  and  loss 
of  parental  authority  and  injluence  is  one  of  the  most  serious 
and  momentous  evils  which  besets  the  American  civilization.  It 
undermines  the  very  foundations  of  the  family — the  essential 
unit  of  society." 

Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  LeConte,  likewise  a  distinguished  Presbyterian 
minister,  a  professor  of  the  same  University  and  a  scientist  and  au- 
thor of  world-wide  celebrity,  addressed  the  writer  a  letter,  saying, 
among  other  things:  "  1 'fully  concur  with  you  in  your  view  that 
any  education  which  weakens  the  family  tie  strikes  at  the  very 
foundation  of  society,  and  no  amount  of  good  in  other  directions 
can  atone  for  this  greatest  of  all  evils.  I  fully  concur  with  you 


86  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

also  in  your  opposition  to  COMPULSORY  STATE  EDUCATION.  This 
certainly  strikes  at  the  integrity  of  the  family ,  for  it  makes  chil- 
dren '  the  'wards  of  the  State*  I  fully  believe,  also,  that  PRIVATE 
SCHOOLS,  each  parent  choosing  his  own,  furnish  a  better  education, 
all  things  considered,  th#n  any  public-school  system.'" 

Rev.  A.  Adams,  of  Los  Angeles,  (Protestant,)  writing  to  the 
author,  says :  "/  am  struck  ivith  the  similarity  of  our  views  on 
the  school  question,  and  bid  you  Godspeed  in  propagating  your 
views  as  contained  in  the  publication  before  me.  I  see  that  you, 
a  Catholic,  and  I,  a  Protestant,  are  united  here" 

Dr.  Thomas  W.  Dawson,  of  Downey  City,  (non-religionist,)  con- 
cludes a  letter  to  the  author  as  follows  :  "  I honestly  believe  that  your 
array  of  facts  and  reasoning  are  simply  unanswerable." 

Mr.  W.  D.  Blackwell,  of  Trenton,  New  Jersey,  wrote  to  the  au- 
thor, saying :  '''•lam  a  Presbyterian,  but  you  and  my  self  are  in  per- 
fect harmony  and  accord  upon  this  all-important  school  question" 

Mr.  W.  L.  Prather,  a  well-known  citizen  and  notary  public  of 
Oakland,  a  strict  member  of  the  Methodist  Church,  concluded  a 
letter  to  the  author  as  follows :  "  TRUTH  is  the  invincible  weapon 
that  you  have  so  efficiently  employed;  a  weapon  that  has  already 
and  will  continue  to  work  as  leaven  in  the  social  and  political 
lump  until,  as  I  trust,  the  whole  shall  become  leavened" 

Hon.  J.  Burckhalter,  of  Santa  Rosa,  Cal.,  a  prominent  lawyer 
and  staunch  member  of  the  Campbellite  (or  Christian)  Church,  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  the  writer  on  the  subject  of  his  educational  fight, 
concluding  thus  :  u  I  hope  you  will  have  courage  and  go  on  in  the 
good  work  until  success  shall  have  crowned  your  efforts" 

Mr.  George  Washington,  the  grand-nephew  and  nearest  living 
relative  of  the  illustrious  Father  of  his  Country,  wrote  to  the  author 
from  Center  View,  Mo.,  April  i3th,  1880: 

u  Please  send  me  a  copy  of  your  celebrated  pamphlet  against  pub- 
lic schools.  I  have  read  copious  extracts  from  the  same,  but  want  a 
copy  in  full  for  re-reading  and  reference.  It  will  keep.  I  am  as  much 
opposed  to  the  system  as  yourself,  but  have  not  the  ability  to  express 
my  objections  as  clearly,  pointedly,  and  forcibly  as  you  have  yours. 
"•  Respectfully, 

"  GEORGE  WASHINGTON." 

TWO  MOST  SIGNIFICANT  FACTS — SUBSTANTIAL  ENDORSEMENTS  BY  A  CONGRE- 
GATIONAL STATE  COUNCIL  AND  A  PRESBYTERIAN  STATE  SYNOD. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Congregational  clergymen  of  California 
are  mostly  New  England  men,  and  it  is  equally  well  known  that  such 
of  them  as  have  investigated  the  subject  are  almost,  if  not  quite,  a  unit 


A  non-  Sectarian  Platform  of  Educational  Principles.      87 

in  their  endorsement  of  our  educational  platform.  As  an  evidence 
of  this,  in  1879  a  California  State  Council  of  Congregational  clergy- 
men convened  in  San  Francisco  appointed  Rev.  Dr.  J.  K.  McLean, 
one  of  its  most  distinguished  members — and  a  signer  of  the  above- 
mentioned  petition  embodying  our  educational  platform — to  prepare 
a  document  touching  the  school  question.  At  an  adjourned  meet- 
ing, which  convened  in  Oakland  October  6th,  1880,  the  Rev.  Doc- 
tor made  a  carefully-prepared  report,  entitled — 

"  THE    PROPER   LIMITS   OF   STATE    EDUCATION." 

This  report  was  in  substantial  accord  with  the  principles  set  forth 
in  said  platform. 

In  proof  of  this,  only  a  few  quotations  will  be  necessary.  For 
example,  this  report  says : 

44  The  State  should  limit  itself  in  the  Jield  of  education  as  it 
does  in  all  the  other  Jields  it  occupies ;  that  is,  it  may  provide,  and 
ought  to  provide,  elementary  teaching  for  those  who  would  not 
otherwise  get  it ;  but  only  on  the  same  ground  on  which  it  pro- 
vides bread  and  clothing  and  shelter  and  medicine  for  those  who 
would  not  otherwise  get  them"  Again, 

"  State  education  should  be  limited  certainly  to  what  is  known 
as  common-school  instruction ;  possibly  to  the  three  elementary 
branches,  reading,  writing,  and  arithmetic"  Again, 

"  A  rapidly  increasing  number  of  people  in  the  churches,  perceiv- 
ing the  impossibility  of  harmonizing  opinions  into  any  sort  of  working 
agreement  as  to  what  shall  be  taught,  as  to  how  it  shall  be  taught, 
and  by  what  kind  of  persons  it  shall  be  taught,  are  arriving  at  the 
conclusion  that  the  wiser  way,  the  jtister  way,  the  far  more  satis- 
factory way,  will  be  no  longer  to  put  our  education  money  into  a 
common  fund,  except  so  far  as  to  guard  the  State  against  utter  illit- 
eracy ;  but  for  the  party  of  each  opinion  to  be  allowed  to  keep  its 
higher  educational  money  in  its  own  hands,  and  to  expend  it  in 
such  manner  as  shall  seem  to  itself  good.  This  will  be  for  the  in- 
terest of  State  harmony  no  less  than  for  the  interest  of  education 
itself.  Then  the  Catholic  father  can  enjoy  his  indefeasible  right 
to  educate  his  child  after  his  own  judgment  and  conscience;  the 
infidel  father  can  enjoy  his  indefeasible  right,  and  the  Protest- 
ant Christian  his"  Again,  the  Rev.  Doctor's  report  says  : 

u  As  matters  now  stand,  the  non-religionist  party  are,  in  some  of 
our  States,  oppressors.  They  are  refusing  the  religionist  liberty  of 
conscience  as  touching  a  most  important  and  far-reaching  matter. 
The  non-religionist  exacts  money  from  the  religionist  for  purposes 
of  a  common  education,  and  then  refuses  the  religionist  any  voice  or 
influence  in  the  management  of  that  education.  For  me,  a  relig- 
ionist, believing  that  a  certain  moral  culture  should  be  joined  to  all 
mental  culture ;  believing,  indeed,  that  the  two  cannot  by  any  pos- 
sibility be  separated  ;  believing  that  the  absence  of  positive  moral 


88  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

culture  is  equivalent  to  a  culture  in  /^morality — just  as  the  absence 
of  certain  elements  in  the  atmosphere  leaves  it  poisonously  noxious — 
for  me  to  insist  that  some  appliances  for  moral  culture  shall  be  in- 
cluded in  our  common  system  of  education  is  bigotry.  There  must 
be  two  taxes  and  one  voice.  I  can  pay,  but  can  have  no  say.  There 
is  no  bigotry  in  the  non-religionist  having  what  he  wants  at  the  com- 
mon expense,  but  for  the  religionist  to  claim  some  allowance  for 
his  wants  is  the  essence  of  bigotry. 

So  great  is  the  divergence  of  opinion  as  to  systems  of  education, 
so  impossible  of  remediation  does  this  divergency  appear  to  be,  that 
very  many  of  us  are  beginning  to  think  that  the  only  peaceable  and 
harmonious  way  must  be  to  follow  the  example  set  in  early  days  in 
the  matter  of  State  religion — for  the  State  simply  to  protect  all  par- 
ties in  their  opinions,  and  relegate  to  each  parent  the  business  of 
providing  his  children  with  such  higher  education  as  his  judgment 
may  suggest  or  his  conscience  dictate.  The  same  principle,  pre- 
cisely, appears  to  underlie  both  matters,  that  of  church  and 
State,  and  that  of  school  and  State" 

This  able  report  of  the  Rev.  Doctor's  was  promptly  adopted  and 
published  to  the  world  as  expressing  the  views  of  the  Council.  Sub- 
sequently, a  Presbyterian  State  Synod,  held  in  San  Francisco,  ap- 
pointed Rev.  Dr.  Scott,  one  of  its  ablest  members,  (who  was  also 
one  of  the  signers  of  our  said  petition) ,  to  prepare  a  report  on  the 
same  subject.  His  report,  when  prepared,  was  also  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  said  petition  and  with  the  views  proclaimed  by  the  Con- 
gregational Council.  Rev.  Dr.  Scott's  report  was  also  adopted  by 
nearly,  if  not  quite,  a  unanimous  vote  of  the  Synod. 

The  important  significance  of  the  action  thus  taken  by  these  two 
highly- intelligent  and  influential  bodies  of  men  in  favor  of  parental 
rights  and  equal  liberty  in  educational  matters  can  scarcely  be  over- 
estimated. 

It  would  be  easy  to  fill  page  after  page  with  the  endorsements  from 
distinguished  Protestant,  Jewish,  and  non-religious  sources,  but  it 
is  now  in  order  to  show  that  our  non-sectarian  platform  of  educa- 
tional principles  is  as  acceptable  to  intelligent  and  fair-minded  Cath- 
olics as  it  is  to  non-Catholics. 

For  example :  Archbishop  Seghers,  writing  from  Portland,  Ore- 
gon, March  26th,  1883,  among  other  things,  says  : 

"  The  logic  with  whicn  you  grapple  with  the  educational  prob- 
u  lem  is  irresistible,  and,  as  the  champion  of  the  only  system  of  edu- 
"  cation  that  can  be  reared  on  principles  of  truth  and  justice,  you 
"  are  simply  admirable.  When  I  read  your  thoughts  I  feel  that 
"  they  are  the  outcome  of  long,  careful,  patient  study  and  of  con- 
"  scientious  convictions." 


A.  non- Sectarian  Platform  of  Educational  Principles.      89 

Bishop  Grace,  of  St.  Paul,  Minnesota,  in  February,  1881,  writing 
to  the  author  upon  the  subject  of  his  magazine,  then  being  published, 
among  other  things,  said  : 

"  You  have  judged  wisely  in  making  your  magazine  non-sectarian 
"  and  appealing  to  the  common  sense  and  calm  judgment  of  the 
u  American  people  at  large.  I  have  long  since  been  convinced  that 
"  this  was  the  proper  course  from  the  beginning.  By  making  the 
44  movement  appear  a  strictly  Catholic  movement,  upon  Catholic 
"  grounds,  ive  forfeited  the  sympathy  and  co-operation  of  the 
"  communities  of  other  creeds,  and  by  our  over-heated  zeal  ive 
"  alienated  from  us  the  liberal-minded  among  our  better  citizens 
"  in  general" 

Subsequently,  the  same  eminent  prelate  wrote  to  the  author,  say- 
ing: 

u  If  you  need  any  words  of  mine  to  encourage  you  in  the  course 
you  are  pursuing,  you  have  them  from  my  heart.  Every  day  con- 
vinces me  more  and  more  that  the  ground  you  have  taken  in  defence 
of  the  rights  of  the  family  against  the  encroachments  of  the  State  is 
really  the  ground  upon  which  the  opposition  to  the  State  school  sys- 
tem should  have  been  based  from  the  beginning.  Natural  rights,  as 
involved  in  this  question,  no  legitimate  Government  will  infringe,  or 
allow  to  be  infringed,  upon  due  proof.  The  law  of  majorities,  the 

vox  populi,  has  no  weight  against  the  claims  of  natural  family  rights." 

• 

More  than  a  dozen  other  distinguished  American  bishops  and 
archbishops,  including  Archbishop  Elder,  of  Cincinnati ;  Bishop 
Spalding.  of  Peoria ;  Bishop  Ryan,  of  Buffalo,  N.  Y.;  Bishop 
Gilmoure,  of  Cleveland,  Ohio;  Bishop  Marty,  of  Dakota  ;  Bishop 
Seidenbush,  of  Minnesota;  Bishop  Fink,  of  Leaven  worth  ;  Bishop 
Hogan,  of  Kansas  City,  and  all  the  Pacific  Coast  bishops,  have 
joined  in  the  substantial  endorsement  of  our  aforesaid  educational 
platform  ;  and,  last  but  not  least,  the  great  Cardinal  Manning,  of 
England,  concluded  an  article  on  the  school  question  (published  in 
the  Nineteenth  Century  for  April,  1883)  by  saying  that  he  could 
not  do  better  than  repeat  the  above  letter  of  Bishop  Grace,  commend- 
ing, as  we  have  just  seen,  in  the  strongest  terms  the  author's  position. 

The  truth  is  that  wherever,  and  whenever,  and  by  whomsoever, 
our  platform  of  educational  principles  has  been  studied  in  connec- 
tion with  our  compilation  of  criminal  statistics,  it  has  been  almost 
invariably  endorsed. 

At  least  we  feel  warranted  in  saying  that  wherever  the  school 
question  has  been  carefully  considered  from  the  stand-point  presented 
in  these  pages,  the  number  of  those  who  endorse  our  platform, 
compared  with  the  number  who  reject  it,  stands  in  the  proportion 
of  not  less  than 


90  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 


six  TO  ONE. 


As  a  fair  test  of  the  truth  of  this  proposition  it  may  be  stated 
that,  in  the  month  of  June,  1881,  it  was  announced  in  the  Oakland 
papers  that  the  writer  would  deliver  two  pay  lectures  in  Cameron 
Hall,  Oakland,  to  wit:  on  the  evenings  of  Friday  and  Saturday, 
July  ist  and  2d  ;  the  first  lecture  to  be  in  answer  to  the  question, 
"  Which  of  the  two  is  the  more  plausible  theory,  namely,  that  man 
is  an  improved  monkey,  or  that  the  monkey  is  an  improved  man?'* 
and  printed  on  the  backs  of  the  tickets  of  admission  was  the  follow- 
ing, as  indicating  the  programme  and  the  nature  of  the  subject  for 
Saturday  evening's  lecture,  to  wit  : 

CHANCE    FOR    A    PRIZE. 

On  the  evening  of  the  second  lecture  a  prize,  consisting  of  twenty- 
'five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  both  lectures,  will  be  awarded 
to  the  person  present  who  shall,  in  the  fewest  words,  not  exceeding 
one  hundred  in  number,  furnish  in  -writing  the  best  original  an- 
swer, with  the  chief  reasons  therefor,  to  the  following  question, 
to  wit : 

In  cases  where,  on  the  one  hand,  the  judgment  and  conscience  of 
a  proper  parent,  fit  to  be  guardian  of  his  own  child,  and  on  the 
other,  the  judgment  and  conscience  of  the  school  officials  and  of  the 
general  public  differ,  irreconcilably,  as  to  whether  said  child,  when 
of  school  age,  can,  with  safety  to  its  health,  its  life,  or  its  morals, 
be  educated  in  such  schools  as  the  public  has  provided  for  that  pur- 
pose, whose  judgment  and  conscience  ought  to  control — that  of  the 
parent  or  that  of  the  school  officials  and  the  general  public  ? 

Said  award  will  be  made  immediately  before  the  second  lecture, 
by  an  umpire  to  be  chosen  by  the  competing  respondents,  whose 
answers  must  all  be  handed  to  the  doorkeeper  by  7i  o'clock. 

The  answer  taking  the  prize  will  constitute  the  subject  of  the  sec- 
ond lecture. 

The  lectures  came  off  as  appointed,  and  seven  competing  answers 
to  the  foregoing  questions  were  handed  in.  Hon.  J.  C.  Martin  was 
elected  umpire  to  pass  upon  the  merits  of  the  several  answers ;  and 
upon  his  request  to  have  two  assistants  to  aid  him  in  arriving  at  a 
correct  conclusion,  he  was  authorized  by  a  unanimous  vote  to  select 
such  assistants,  whereupon  he  selected  Dr.  D.  Skilling  and  Mr. 
John  Lynch.  After  a  careful  examination  and  comparison  of  the 
various  answers,  the  preference  was,  by  unanimous  consent,  given 
to  that  of  Hon.  A.  R.  Redman,  which  is  as  follows: 

The  judgment  of  the  parent  must  control,  because — 

i  st.  The  instinctive  love  and  mutual  affection  of  parent  and  child 


A  non- Sectarian  Platform  of  Educational  Principles.      91 

afford  assurances  of  protection  for  the  latter,  and  are  elements  which 
cannot  be  alienated,  transferred,  or  divested. 

2d.  These  natural  instincts  and  the  duty  of  the  parent  to  support 
the  child,  the  right  to  enjoy  its  services  and  companionship,  cannot 
co-exist  with  a  higher  authority  resting  elsewhere  to  ki  educate  "  it, 
without  an  irrepressible  conflict  subversive  of  these  natural  and  in- 
alienable duties  and  obligations,  which  are  based  upon  the  laws  of 
nature  and  of  God. 

(Signed)  A.   R.  REDMAN. 

The  following  are  the  other  six  competing  answers,  with  the  sig- 
natures of  their  respective  authors  appended : 

The  judgment  of  the  school  officials  and  the  general  public 
(should  control),  "  because  the  school  officials  and  general  public, 
being  equally  interested  in  all  the  children,  decide  unselfishly." 

2d.  The  motto  of  the  school  officials  and  general  public  is,  The 
greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number. 

3d.  The  school  which  the  public  has  provided  is  the  result  of  the 
aggregated  wisdom  and  virtue  of  the  State  or  community. 

4th.  The  school  officials  and  general  public  believe  that  virtue 
must  be  brought  in  contact  with  vice  both  to  strengthen  virtue  and 
to  weaken  vice. 

5th.  The  public  school  proposes  a  sufficiently  high  but  general 
development  for  all. 

(Signed)  J.  C.   LAWSON. 

The  judgment  of  the  parent  (should  control),  because  he  t;  is  a 
proper  parent  Jit  to  be  guardian  of  his  own  child"  none  feeling 
the  same  interest  in  the  child  as  the  parent,  and  none  so  able  to  form 
its  character. 

3d.  Because  the  parent  is  directly  responsible  to  God  for  the  proper 
training  of  the  child,  and  no  one  other  than  the  parent  should  have 
control  or  assume  the  responsibility  that  rests  only  on  the  parent. 
(Signed)  W.  L.  PRATHER. 

A  proper  parent  should  control  the  education  of  his  child.  His 
judgment  concerning  the  mental,  physical,  and  moral  needs  of  his 
own  offspring,  with  whom  he  is  in  daily  contact,  must  be  better 
than  that  of  paid  officials,  who,  in  handling  an  incongruous  mass  of 
immature  minds,  can  know  little  of  each  individual. temperament, 
and  in  many  instances  cares  less.  The  sound  judgment  of  the  par- 
ent admitted,  his  conscience  would  naturally  dictate  to  him  his  duty. 
He  should  place  his  child  under  the  best  moral  and  social  influence, 
and  of  them  he  is  the  best  judge. 

(Signed)  J.  L.  ABELL. 

The  parent,  (should  control),  otherwise  would  he  violate  the  law 
guaranteeing  liberty,  and  providing  that  no  citizen  should  be  de- 
prived of  liberty  except  by  due  process.  Naturally  the  parent  is 
the  best  judge,  knowing  the  child  best,  and  he  would  from  every 


92  "  Poison  Drops"  i:t  the  Federal  Senate. 

consideration  care  most,  and  certainly  the  community's  real  interests 
are  never  jeopardized  by  the  true  interest  of  one  of  its  citizens.  The 
great  interest  of  the  child  is  not  considered  by  the  people  or  their  repre- 
sentatives— the  greatest  and  best  interest  of  the  soul.  The  parent 
looks  to  this,  if  a  proper  parent. 

(Signed)  J.   C.  KENDRICK,  M.  D. 

God  has  made  it  both  the  right  and  the  duty  of  the  parent  to  sup- 
port and  educate  his  child,  nor  can  any  power  justly  deprive  him  of 
this  right  or  release  him  from  this  duty.  The  duty  and  the  right 
are  inseparable. 

If  the  State  can  of  right  prescribe  the  schools  and  education,  it 
can  of  right  prescribe  its  religion.  This  would  be  anti-American 
and  subversive  of  our  free  institutions. 

(Signed)  H.  H.  HENDRIX. 

None  should  come  between  my  child  and  me,  or  dictate  how  I 
should  educate  or  raise  it ;  for  my  heart  alone  will  grieve  if  false 
teachings  lead  it  astray,  and  my  soul  alone  is  responsible  to  the 
eternal  God  for  His  charge.  My  money  is  mine,  and  it  is  but  just 
that  I  use  it  for  my  child's  interest  in  schools  I  approve. 

Education  without  religion  is  as  bad  as  total   ignorance.     Better 
a  godly  citizen  than  a  classical  knave  ;    political  mills  are  not  places 
wherein  my  child  can  learn  honesty,  morality,  and  virtue. 
(Signed)  M.  E.  L., 

375  Fourth  Street,  City. 

It  will  be  observed  that  there  is  nothing  either  in  the  question 
itself,  or  in  any  of  the  foregoing  answers,  in  the  least  tinged  with 
what  is  usually  called  sectarian  bias.  Six  of  the  competing  parties 
were  either  Protestants  or  non-religionists,  and  two  of  the  umpires 
were  Protestants  and  one  Catholic.  Taking  both  the  seven  com- 
petitors and  the  three  umpires,  they  make  ten  in  all,  and  represent 
almost  that  many  shades  of  religious  belief;  and  yet — as  will  be 
seen  by  reading  these  answers,  and  the  names  of  the  umpires 
appended  to  the  award — they  stood  solid  for  parental  rights,  nine 
against  one.  It  is  our  solemn  conviction  that  whenever  this  ques- 
tion can  be  brought  squarely  before  the  people,  so  that  they  can  vote 
upon  it  understandingly,  more  than  nine  to  one  will  vote  against 
this  monstrous  usurpation,  whereby  parents  are  robbed  of  their 
natural  and  God-given  rights  in  so  sacred  a  matter  as  that  of  select- 
ing schools  for  their  own  children. 

There  is  but  one  of  the  foregoing  answers  upon  which  we  deem 
it  necessary  to  comment,  because  each  of  the  others  seems  to 
embody,  in  different  forms  of  expression,  the  same  sound  doctrine 
as  that  contained  in  the  one  to  which  the  umpires  gave  the  pref- 


A  non-Sectarian  Platform  of  Educational  Principles.      93 

erence.     The  answer  to  which  we  cannot  subscribe  is  that  of  Mr. 
Lawson. 

He  maintains  that  where  there  is  a  conflict  between  the  judgment 
and  conscience  of  a  proper  parent  on  the  one  side,  and  the  judg- 
ment and  conscience  of  the  school  officials  and  the  general  public 
on  the  other,  as  to  whether  a  child  can  with  safety  to  its  health,  its 
life,  and  its  morals  be  sent  to  such  school  as  the  public  has  estab- 
lished, the  judgment  of  the  school  officials  and  the  general  public 
should  control.  And  his  reasons  are:  First,  "  because  the  school 
officials  and  the  general  public,  being  equally  interested  in  all  the 
children,  decide  unselfishly." 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  we  deny  the  truth  of  this  statement, 
because,  unless  the  school  officials  are  all  old  bachelors,  or  other- 
wise childless  persons,  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  be  ^''equally 
h/tcrcsted  in  all  the  children"  In  other  words,  it  is  in  the  very 
nature  of  things  impossible  for  the  parents  of  children  to  feel  no 
more  interest  in  the  proper  education  of  their  own  than  in  that  of 
their  neighbor's  children  or  the  children  of  strangers.  Should  the 
school  officials  happen  to  be  childless  persons,  it  may  then  be  pos- 
sible for  them  to  feel  "  equally  interested  in  all  the  children  ;"  but,  in 
such  a  case,  we  contend  that  as  a  rule  they  could  not  feel  that 
degree  of  interest  in  any  of  the  children  which  the  person  ought 
to  feel  whose  duty  it  is  to  select  a  school  for  the  protection  of  the 
health,  the  life,  and  the  morals  of  a  child.  To  show,  in  a  few  words, 
the  utter  fallacy  of  Mr.  Lawson's  first  argument,  let  us  suppose 
that  instead  of  a  young  child,  whose  health  and  morals  are  at  stake, 
\ve  take  the  case  of  a  young  swine,  whose  health  and  life  alone  are 
involved,  and  we  will  ask  the  question  whether  that  young  swine 
ought  for  safety  to  be  left  to  the  care  of  its  own  mother,  who  feels 
for  it  an  instinctive  affection  that  no  other  swine  can,  or  whether 
it  would  be  better  to  take  it  from  its  own  mother  and  intrust  it  to 
the  tender  mercies  of  a  herd  of  strange  hogs  ?  Most  unquestionably, 
according  to  Mr.  Lawson's  first  proposition,  the  pig  would  be  better 
taken  care  of  by  the  general  herd,  because  they  would  take  just  as 
much  interest  in  that  as  they  would  in  any  other  strange  pig.  Yet 
we  venture  the  opinion  that  were  Mr.  Lawson  engaged  in  the  busi- 
ness of  raising  hogs  instead  of  raising  babies,  he  would  rather  trust 
the  care  and  management — and  educational  control,  if  you  please — 
of  his  young  pigs  to  their  own  mothers  than  to  any  or  all  the  other 
swine  in  Christendom  ;  not  certainly  upon  the  ground  that  she  felt 
an  equal  interest  in  all  the  pigs  in  the  country  as  in  her  own,  but 
upon  the  very  ground  that  she  did  not,  because  if  those  affections, 


94  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

and  that  interest  which  ought  to  be  lavished  upon  a  dozen  of  her 
own,  were  divided  in  equal  parts  between  them  and  a  thousand 
others  it  is  very  certain  that  her  own  would  suffer.  The  God  of 
nature,  in  His  infinite  wisdom,  has  ordained  that  the  educational 
control  of  the  child  should  be  entrusted  to  those  who  feel  for  it  far 
more  than  such  a  general  interest  as  is  equally  applicable  to  all 
the  children  in  the  community.  He  who  is  to  select  a  school  for 
a  child  with  a  view  of  preserving  its  health,  its  life,  and  its  morals, 
ought  to  be  a  person  who  loves  such  child  with  a  parent's  love ; 
and  nobody  but  a  parent  can  do  that.  He  ought  to  be  a  person 
who  has  a  parent's  opportunities  of  knowing  both  the  mental  and 
physical  peculiarities  of  the  child,  because  a  strong,  robust  child 
might  with  safety  endure  a  school  atmosphere  which  would  be  cer- 
tain death  to  another  of  a  more  delicate  constitution. 

Again,  a  cross,  stern,  and  severe  teacher,  such  as  would  be  an 
absolute  necessity  for  a  certain  class  of  rough,  uncouth,  incorrigible 
youths,  would  often  so  unnerve  the  child  of  a  timid,  sensitive  nature 
as  to  destroy  its  health,  inspire  it  with  horror  for  the  very  name  of 
school,  and  place  it  beyond  the  range  of  possibility  for  it  to  learn. 

Again,  he  who  is  to  control  the  child's  education  ought  to  feel, 
as  only  a  parent  can  feel,  that  his  own  individual  happiness,  as  well 
as  that  of  the  child,  will  largely  depend  upon  the  kind  of  teachers 
and  companions  he  selects  for  such  a  child.  He  should  feel  that 
either  the  death  or  moral  ruin,  or  the  unfitting  of  such  child  for 
any  honest  pursuit  within  its  reach,  will  result  in  an  irreparable 
disaster  to  himself  'as  well  as  the  child. 

As  suggested  in  one  of  the  foregoing  answers,  the  child  in  the 
hands  of  its  parents  is  a  sacred  trust  from  the  Almighty,  and  He 
has  imposed,  even  in  this  life,  terrible  penalties  upon  the  violators 
of  this  trust.  In  the  language  of  an  immutable  law,  which  He  has 
indelibly  written  on  the  parental  heart,  He  has  plainly  said  to  every 
father  and  mother  to  whom  He  has  given  a  child:  ''  This  child  is 
My  handiwork.  It  bears  My  image.  It  is  a  jewel  more  precious 
than  all  the  treasures  of  earth.  At  thy  solicitation  I  intrust  it  to  thy 
keeping,  in  order  that  thou  mayest  feed  and  clothe  and  train  it  up  in 
the  way  it  should  go.  I  charge  thee  to  shield  it  from  sickness  and 
death,  and  the  still  more  terrible  curse  of  crime  against  My  laws." 

In  order  to  make  the  faithful  discharge  of  this  trust  a  pleasing  duty, 
rather  than  an  irksome  task,  the  Almighty  has  given  to  you — fathers 
and  mothers — a  fond  and  ardent  love  for  your  own  child,  such  as 
other  parents  may  bear  towards  their  children,  but  such  as  no  other 
human  being  in  this  world  can  ever  bear  towards  yours.  He  has, 


A  non- Sectarian  Platform  of  Educational  Principles.      95 

moreover,  implanted  in  the  heart  of  your  child  the  seeds  of  filial 
love  for  YOU,  such  as  other  children  may  feel  for  their  own  parents, 
but  such  as  none  but  your  children  can  ever  feel  for  you. 

He  has  likewise  sealed  and  confirmed  your  parental  authority 
over  your  child  by  commanding  it,  under  the  severest  penalties,  to 
honor  and  obey  you,  its  father  and  mother.  Thus  armed  with  a 
God-given  authority,  and  charged  with  the  God-imposed  duty  of  se- 
lecting for  your  own  child  a  proper  school,  if,  in  deference  to  the 
wishes,  or  in  obedience  to  the  commands,  of  the  outer  world,  you 
allow  your  child  to  be  hurried  to  an  untimely  grave  or  plunged  into 
the  polluting  mire  of  iniquity,  it  is  not  the  outer  world — the  usurper 
of  your  sacred  office — but  you,  yourself,  together  with  your  child, 
who  must  chiefly  suffer  the  terrible  consequences  of  such  usurpa- 
tion. 

Yours  are  the  sleepless  nights  that  must  be  spent  in  watching  by 
the  bedside  of  your  sick  or  dying  child,  and  yours  the  bleeding 
heart  that  must  writhe  in  agony  as  you  look  upon  the  lifeless  form 
of  that  beautiful  cherub  who  has  fallen  a  victim  to  the  poisoned  air 
of  an  over-crowded  school-room,  or  other  death-producing  cause,  to 
which,  in  defiance  of  your  own  solemn  convictions  of  duty,  you 
have  exposed  it,  because  the  public-school  officials  demanded  the 
sacrifice  ;  or  worse. 

Still,  should  your  idolized  son,  or  your  once  spotless  daughter, 
in  consequence  of  the  false  maxims  or  bad  example  of  an  immoral 
teacher,  or  the  vile  associations  of  wicked  school-mates,  become  a 
burning  disgrace  to  your  name,  it  is  von  who  will  have  to  hang  your 
head  in  unutterable  shame  and  confusion,  while  the  very  persons 
at  whose  bidding  you  have  allowed  your  child's  mind  and  heart  to 
be  poisoned,  and  its  doom  of  degradation  and  misery  sealed  for 
time  and  eternity,  will  shun  you  as  they  would  shun  a  leper;  and 
they  will  point  you  out  to  the  passing  stranger  as  an  k'  old  fellow 
who  has  a  son  in  the  penitentiary,"  or  "  a  daughter  in  a  house  of 
ill-fame."  And  on  the  great  accounting  day,  what  excuse  can  you 
frame  for  so  base  a  betrayal  of  your  high  trust? 

Mr.  Lawson's  second  reason  assigned  in  support  of  his  theory, 
that  the  parent's  judgment  and  conscience  ought  to  yield  to  the  judg- 
ment and  conscience  of  the  public-school  officials  and  the  general 
public,  is  "because  the  motto  of  the  school  officials  and  the  general 
public  is,  The  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number." 

Now,  if  we  have  been  successful — as  we  think  we  have — in  show- 
ing that  God  Almighty  has  so  formed  human  nature,  and  so  estab- 
lished the  relations  between  parent  and  child,  that,  as  a  general 


96  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the.  Federal  Senate. 

rule,  the  greatest  good  both  of  children  and  parents  requires  that  the 
parental  judgment  and  conscience  should  control  in  the  matter  of 
selecting  schools  for  children,  then  we  think  that  the  said  second 
reason  is  already  fully  answered. 

Mr.  Lawson's  third  reason  is  that  the  school  which  the  public  has 
provided  is  the  result  of  the  aggregated  wisdom  and  virtue  of  the 
State  or  community.  We  think  that  a  little  reflection,  and  a  careful 
inspection  of  facts  and  figures,  such  as  we  have  carefully  collected 
from  the  United  States  Census  Reports  and  placed  before  our  readers, 
will  convince  any  candid  mind  that,  as  a  general  proposition,  "  the 
school  which  the  public  has  provided  "  comes  much  nearer  being 
' '  the  result  of  the  aggregated  "  folly  and  vice  of  l '  the  State  or  com- 
munity" than  it  does  to  being  its  aggregated  wisdom  and  virtue. 

We  would,  moreover,  inquire  what  does,  or  can,  the  aggregated 
wisdom  of  the  State  know  about  the  individual  tastes,  dispositions, 
inclinations,  mental,  moral,  and  physical  peculiarities  of  your  little 
seven  or  ten-year-old  girl,  whose  very  existence  is  not  known  to  more 
than  one  out  of  ten  thousand  of  the  voters  who  are  supposed  to  rep- 
resent "the  aggregated  wisdom  of  the  State?"  And  who,  we  ask, 
if  in  search  of  knowledge  touching  those  very  characteristics  and 
peculiarities  of  the  child  which  ought  to  be  considered  when  select- 
ing the  school  wherein  her  whole  future  life  is  to  be  shaped,  would 
not  infinitely  rather  consult  the  father  and  mother  than  all  "the 
aggregated  wisdom "  of  the  outside  world  ?  We  would  much 
rather  trust  to  the  individual  wisdom  of  a  mother  goose  for  the 
proper  management  and  training  of  her  own  goslings  than  to  the 
aggregated  wisdom  of  all  the  other  geese  in  Christendom. 

But  Mr.  Lawson's  fourth  reason  for  depriving  parents  of  the  right 
to  exercise  their  own  judgments  and  consciences  in  the  matter  of 
selecting  schools  for  their  children,  although  in  perfect  harmony  both 
with  the  theory  and  the  practical  workings  of  our  present  public- 
school  system,  is  certainly  a  most  startling  one.  He  says :  "The 
school  officials  and  general  public  believe  that  virtue  must  be  brought 
in  contact  with  vice  both  to  strengthen  virtue  and  to  weaken  vice." 
If  this  be  sound  philosophy,  then  should  every  young  man  who 
aspires  to  a  reputation  for  strict  and  sterling  integrity  first  serve  his 
time  in  the  company  of  pick-pockets,  burglars,  forgers,  counterfeit- 
ers, garroters,  thieves,  and  robbers.  And  no  young  lady  should  be 
considered  strong  in  the  virtue  of  purity  until  she  has  first  waltzed 
with  a  thousand  lascivious  rakes  and  served  an  apprenticeship  in  a 
bawdy-house. 

It  is  evident  that  Pope,  the  poet,  was  not  versed  in  the  Lawsonian 


A  non- Sectarian  Platform  of  Educational  Principles.      97 

philosophy,  or  he  never  would  have  written  those  oft-quoted  lines 
saying : 

"Vice  is  a  monster  of  so  frightful  mien 
As  to  be  hated  needs  but  to  be  seen ; 
Yet  seen  too  oft,  familiar  with  her  face, 
We  first  endure,  then  pity,  then  embrace." 

Neither  did  Lord  Byron  have  the  least  idea  of  the  great  advan- 
tage which  a  virtuous  boy  derives  from  vile  associations,  nor  how 
easy  it  is  for  a  young  lad  to  grow  strong  in  virtue  amidst  scenes  of 
vice,  when  he  penned  the  words — 

"  Ah  vice !  how  soft  are  thy  voluptuous  ways  ! 

When  boyish  blood  is  mantling,  who  can  'scape 
The  fascination  of  thy  magic  gaze  ? 

We  wonder  if  it  was  because  of  his  contact  with  vice  and  the 
vicious  enemies  of  our  Saviour  that  the  Apostle  Peter  became  so 
strong  in  virtue  that  at  the  voice  of  a  servant  handmaid  he  denied 
his  Divine  Master  and  swore  that  he  knew  not  the  man? 

A-  stated  in  another  chapter,  a  committee  of  Massachusetts  ladies, 
after  visiting  the  public  schools  of  their  State  a  short  time  ago,  made 
a  report,  declaring"  that  teachers  almost  universally  complain  of  the 
prevalence  of  lying,  stealing,  profanity,  and  impurity  among  their 
scholars."  Now,  if  this  statement  is  true,  and  if  Mr.  Lawson's 
philosophy  is  sound,  what  a  splendid  place  a  Massachusetts  public 
school  must  be  in  which  to  strengthen  and  give,  as  it  were,  the  fin- 
ishing touch  to  the  pious  education  of  a  virtuous  youth.  If  Mr. 
Lawson's  doctrine — which,  after  all,  is  simply  the  doctrine  whereon 
rests  the  present  anti-parental  public-school  system — is  to  be  the  set- 
tled dpctrine  on  educational  questions  in  this  country,  what  becomes  of 
the  liberty  of  conscience  ?  If  the  public  and  not  the  parental  judg- 
ment and  conscience  must  determine  as  to  the  fitness  of  the  school 
for  each  individual  child,  suppose  that  the  people  of  some  religious 
denomination  should  one  of  these  days  obtain  a  predominating 
influence  in  elections,  and  should,  in  obedience  to  the  public  con- 
science, force  the  teaching  of  their  religion  upon  all  children,  in 
utter  disregard  of  the  dictates  of  the  parental  conscience  of  thou- 
sands of  unbelievers  in  the  popular  religion  ;  would  anybody  deny 
that  this  would  be  a  violation  of  the  principle  of  religious  liberty? 
And  yet  is  it  any  more  a  violation  of  religious  liberty  to  force  a 
child  to  study  the  doctrines  and  principles  of  a  religion,  against 
which  the  consciences  of  its  parents  protest,  than  to  force  that  same 
child  into  associations  with  immoral  teachers  and  vile  companions 
which  these  same  parents  conscientiously  believe  will  be  a  thousand 


98  "  Poison  Drops'"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

times  more  injurious  to  the  child  than  the  most  objectionable  re- 
ligious teachings?  In  this  connection  there  is  one  thought  that 
sometimes  fills  us  with  amazement  with  reference  to  the  action  of 
a  vast  number  of  people  of  all  creeds,  and  it  is  this  :  While  they 
are  particularly,  and  we  may  say  properly,  careful  to  guard  against 
the  teaching  of  any  religion  in  the  public  schools  which  may  tend 
to  estrange  their  children  from  their  own,  there  is,  as  a  rule,  com- 
paratively little  heed  paid  by  any  class  of  religionists  to  the  vicious, 
degrading,  and  criminal  principles  and  practices  of  either  teachers 
or  school  companions,  by  means  of  which  millions  of  those  children 
not  only  lose  all  faith  in  the  creeds  of  their  parents,  but  learn  to 
despise  the  very  name  of  religion,  and  finally  leave  school  both 
confirmed  atheists  and  hardened  criminals.  Our  readers  will 
understand  that  this  remark  is  not  made  in  any  sectarian  sense,  for 
we  believe  in  our  heart  that  it  applies  with  nearly  equal  force  to 
Catholics,  Protestants,  and  Jews. 

Judging  from  their  actions  and  their  non-actions,  it  would  really 
seem  that  there  is  a  vast  number  of  professing  religionists,  clergymen 
as  well  as  laymen,  who  think  it  matters  but  very  little  if  children  do 
go  to  hell,  provided  they  get  there  by  some  other  road  than  by  the 
way  of  a  wrong  religion.  For  our  own  part  we  do  sincerely  believe 
that  our  ungodly  and  anti-parental  public-school  education  is  doing 
far  more  to-day  to  people  the  devil's  dominions  than  all  the  false 
religions  in  the  world. 

THE  ACTION  OF  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  SENATE  WITH  REFERENCE  TO  THE 

WRITER'S  APPOINTMENT  AND  CONFIRMATION. 

The  bitter  and  unrelenting  war  so  recently  waged  against  the 
writer's  appointment  and  confirmation  as  U.  S.  Assistant  Attor- 
ney-General because  of  his  views  on  the  educational  question  is 
well  known  to  the  public,  and  the  utter  failure  of  that  bigoted 
and  fanatical  war  to  accomplish  its  purpose  is  equally  well  known. 
The  Senatorial  discussions  touching  the  immediate  subject  of  his 
confirmation  having  been  conducted  in  secret  session,  the  writer 
has,  of  course,  no  means  of  knowing,  except  from  generally-ac- 
cepted report,  what  was  said  or  done  either  by  his  friends  in 
order  to  secure  his  confirmation  or  by  his  opponents  in  order  to 
prevent  it.  It  is  generally  understood,  however,  that  the  matter 
was  twice  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  and  twice  reported 
upon  adversely  by  a  strictly  partisan  vote.  It  was  also  generally 
understood  and  never — to  the  writer's  knowledge — denied  that,  after 
the  refutation  of  the  anonymous  slander  quoted  by  Mr.  Senator  In- 


A  Vital  Question  for  Public- School  Teachers.  99 

galls  during  the  debate  on  the  "Blair"  bill,  the  only  objection 
openly  urged  against  him  was  because  of  his  views  on  the  school 
question,  as  set  forth  in  his  little  pamphlet,  "  DROPS  FROM  THE 
POISON  FOUNTAIN." 

It  was  in  view  of  this  objection  that — as  stated  in  our  introduc- 
tory remarks — we  sent  a  copy  of  said  pamphlet  to  every  member 
of  the  Senate,  accompanied  by  a  request  in  each  case  that  if  the 
Senator  to  whom  it  was  addressed  could  find  anything  therein 
tending  to  prove  the  author's  unfitness  for  the  office  he  held  he 
might  be  notified  of  the  fact.  No  such  notification  was  ever  re- 
ceived, and  the  fact  that  his  confirmation  followed  soon  after  the 
distribution  of  said  pamphlets,  while  it  does  not  prove  that  a  ma- 
joritv  of  the  Senators  or  any  of  them  endorse  the  writer's  views 
on  the  school  question,  it  does  prove  that  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers of  that  august  body,  including  a  number  of  broad-minded 
Republicans,  could  find  nothing  in  said  views  to  warrant  them  in 
ostracizing  from  official  position  the  man  who  proclaimed  them. 
And  this  of  itself  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  most  magnificent 
triumph  of  intelligence  over  ignorance ;  of  truth  over  falsehood ; 
and  of  true  liberality  over  bigotry,  fanaticism,  and  proscription. 
With  these  barriers  broken  down,  if  the  principles  we  proclaim 
are  just  and  right  they  are  sure  to  prevail.  But  if  they  are  wrong 
we  do  not  desire  their  success. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

A   VITAL   qUESTION    FOR    PUBLIC-SCHOOL    TEACHERS. 

IN  a  work  entitled  the  "  Daily  Public  School,"  published  by 
Lippincott  in  1866,  at  pages  77-78  we  find  it  stated  that  "  the 
most  frequent  failures  noticed  in  the  reports  are  in  matters 
of  disci  pi  hie  or  government.  And  this  is  perhaps  the  most 
difficult  of  all  others  to  remedy." 

The  author  then  goes  on  to  attribute  this  failure  of  discipline  in 
the  public  schools  to  a  want  of  capacity  in  the  public-school  teach- 
ers to  govern  pupils. 

We  have  no  doubt  but  that  in  many  cases  there  is  amongst  our 
public-school  teachers  a  lack  of  governing  capacity.  But  we  main- 
tain that,  as  a  general  rule,  the  want  of  discipline  amongst  our  com- 
mon-school pupils  arises  chiefly  from  causes  inherent  in  the  very  sys- 


ioo  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

tern  under  which  they  are  being  educated.  These  causes  consist 
chiefly  in  a  lack  of  legitimate  authority,  and  are  of  such  a  nature 
that  the  very  best  of  teachers  are  powerless  to  remove  or  control 
them. 

We  maintain  the  principle  laid  down  by  Blackstone,  and  recog- 
nized by  all  moral  and  religious  writers,  as  well  as  every  lawyer 
worthy  of  the  name,  that  all  authority  is  from  God,  and  that  to 
fathers  and  mothers  has  He  entrusted  so  much  authority  as  is  neces- 
sary for  the  government  of  their  own  children. 

The  Divine  command,  which  says  u  Honor  thy  father  and  mother," 
was  engraved  upon  the  heart  of  every  child  of  Adam  long  before  it 
was  either  written  upon  tables  of  stone  or  thundered  from  the  heights 
of  Sinai.  The  law  requiring  children  to  obey  their  own  parents  need 
not  to  be  learned,  for  it  is  innate  in  their  very  natures.  It  is  born 
with  them  ;  it  is  a  part  of  themselves,  and  instinctively  becomes 
their  rule  of  conduct  before  their  young  minds  are  capable  of  even 
the  simplest  process  of  reasoning.  Just  as  the  young  lamb  naturally 
hearkens  to  the  voice  of  its  own  mother,  while  heedless  of  the  babel- 
like  bleatings  of  a  thousand  other  ewes  of  the  same  flock,  so  does  the 
young  babe — unless  deterred  by  the  folly  or  wickedness  of  those  who 
called  it  into  being — instinctively  recognize  and  obey  the  parental 
command,  despite  the  jarring  and  discordant  notes  of  ten  thousand 
protesting  tongues. 

The  God  of  nature  has  so  wisely  and  so  beneficently  connected 
the  path  of  parental  duty  on'  the  one  side  with  the  path  of  filial 
obedience  on  the  other  that  it  is  next  to  impossible  for  fathers  and 
mothers  to  faithfully  pursue  the  former  without  leading  their  chil- 
dren into  the  latter. 

Until  taught  suspicion  by  repeated  contact  with  a  selfish,  deceit- 
ful, and  treacherous  world,  children  are  by  nature  of  a  trustful,  con- 
fiding disposition,  and,  as  a  rule,  parents  have  only  to  prove  them- 
selves worthy  of  the  confidence  of  their  little  ones  in  order  to  insure 
that  confidence. 

The  child's  earliest  impressions  are  the  deepest,  the  strongest, 
and  the  most  enduring ;  and  these  impressions  are,  as  a  rule,  de- 
rived from  its  own  father  and  mother. 

By  the  merciful  dispensations  of  Divine  Providence  the  new-born 
babe,  in  the  very  dawn  of  its  infant  consciousness,  finds  itself  sweetly 
reposing  in  the  arms  and  nestling  in  the  bosom  of  a  loving  mother, 
or  gleefully  dangling  upon  the  knee  of  a  doting  father.  Out  of  its 
mother's  breast  it  draws  the  very  sustenance  of  life,  whilst  from  her 
ever-watchful  eye  beams  the  first  genial  sunlight  of  human  sympathy 


A  Vital  Question  for  Public- School  Teachers.  101 

and  affection  capable  of  warming  into  life  and  activity  the  love  germs 
which  Divinity  has  planted  in  its  pure  and  innocent  heart.  And  who 
does  not  know  that  love  constitutes  the  great  motive  power  of  obe- 
dience? Did  not  HE,  who  is  the  very  source  and  fountain  of  truth, 
say  "  If  you  love  me  you  will  keep  my  commandments?"  And  what 
is  easier  or  sweeter  or  more  gratifying  to  human  nature  than  the  do- 
ing of  that  which  most  pleases  the  one  who  is  the  most  beloved  ? 
And  who  on  earth  has  more  numerous  or  stronger  claims  upon  the 
love  of  a  child  than  its  own  father  and  mother,  provided  they  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  father  and  mother  ? 

In  view  of  these  and  kindred  considerations,  it  becomes  obvious 
that,  as  a  rule,  nobody  in  the  wide  world  stands  in  so  favorable  a 
position  to  command  the  obedience  of  a  child  as  do  its  own  parents, 
because  nobody  else  is  in  a  position  to  establish  so  perfect  a  title  to 
the  love  and  gratitude  of  the  child  ;  nor  has  anybody  else  the  same 
natural  right  to  be  honored  and  obeyed  by  a  child,  in  all  things  law- 
ful, as  have  its  own  father  and  mother. 

Therefore,  the  school  teacher  who  expects  a  willing  and  cheerful 
obedience  at  the  hands  of  a  pupil  should  come  invested  with  an 
authority  which  belongs  alone  to  the  father  and  mother  of  such  pupil, 
and  with  which  they  alone  have  the  power  to  clothe  him.  Such  is 
the  authority  which  parents  confer  upon  the  teachers  of  private 
schools  whom  they  select  for  the  extremely  delicate  and  important 
duty  of  educating  and  training  their  children. 

But  such  is  not  the  authority  which  the  teacher  of  a  public  school 
wields  over  his  pupils. 

On  the  contrary,  as  the  law  provides  and  as  the  courts  have  re- 
peatedly decided,1  the  teacher  derives  his  authority  over  his  pupils 
not  from  their  respective  parents  but  from  the  political  State.  It  is 
by  and  under  the  State's  authority  that  rules  are  made  both  for 
teachers  and  pupils  ;  it  is  by  and  under  State  authority,  and  in  de- 
fiance alike  of  teachers,  parents,  and  pupils,  that  particular  books 
are  used  and  others  proscribed  ;  and  it  is  in  obedience  to  State  au- 
thority, and  not  of  their  own  free-will  and  choice,  that  parents  are 
compelled  to  send  their  children  to  these  schools  under  pain  of 
absolutely  forfeiting  all  money  paid  by  them  for  public-school  pur- 
poses, besides  hazarding  numberless  prosecutions  and  fines  for  a 
failure  to  send  them.'- 

Therefore,  when  the  pupil  of  a  common  school  is  commanded  by 

*  See  California  State  Superintendent's  Biennial  Beport  for  1864-'65,  and  judicial  decision  there 
cited. 
2  Bee  statute  passed  by  the  California  Legislature  March  28, 1874,  (quoted  ante.) 


£O2  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

his  teacher  to  be  punctual  in  his  attendance,  to  read  a  particular 
book,  to  devote  himself  to  a  particular  study,  to  refrain  from  this  or 
that  forbidden  practice,  he  does  not  and  cannot  regard  such  command 
as  bearing  the  seal  of  parental  authority.  On  the  contrary,  he  feels 
and  knows  in  his  heart  of  hearts — however  imperfectly  he  may  be 
able  to  express  that  knowledge — that  such  command  comes  from  the 
political  State,  the  usurper  of  the  parental  prerogative,  the  violator 
of  parental  right,  and  the  destroyer  of  parental  authority. 

He  feels  and  knows  that  his  own  father,  however  intelligent,  hon- 
orable, and  upright  he  may  be,  has  had  no  more  voice  in  determining 
who  should  be  his  teacher,  what  classes  he  should  attend,  what 
books  he  should  use,  or  what  rules  he  should  obey,  than  had  the 
meanest  and  most  besotted  drunkard,  ruffian,  and  rake  that  ever 
polluted  the  precincts  of  a  tippling-shop  with  his  vile  presence. 

If,  then,  it  is  true  that  love  is  the  great  incentive  to  obedience, 
what  sort  of  motive  shall  we  bring  to  bear  upon  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  the  pupils  of  our  anti-parental  common  schools  in  order 
to  incite  them  to  obey  their  rules  and  observe  their  discipline  ? 

Amid  the  repeated  clashings  and  conflicts  between  home  thought, 
home  instruction,  and  home  discipline  on  one  side,  and  common- 
school  thought,  common-school  instruction,  and  common-school 
discipline  on  the  other,  such  as  the  pupils  of  our  common  schools 
are  necessarily  doomed  either  to  witness  or  to  encounter  in  one 
shape  or  another,  it  must  soon  become  apparent  to  the  intellect  of 
the  dullest  of  these  pupils  that  his  teachers,  however  intelligent, 
learned,  and  virtuous  they  may  be,  are  not  at  liberty  to  follow  either 
the  dictates  of  their  own  judgments  and  consciences,  or  to  respect 
the  wishes  of  its  parents,  either  in  prescribing  the  particular  books 
it  shall  study,  the  companions  with  whom  it  shall  associate,  the  rules 
it  shall  obey,  or  the  punishment  it  shall  undergo  as  the  penalty  of 
its  disobedience. 

The  child  soon  learns  the  lesson  taught  by  Mr.  John  Swett  in  his 
Biennial  Report  as  California  State  Superintendent  of  Public  In- 
struction in  1864,  namely  :  That 

"  The  vulgar  impression  that  parents  have  a  legal  right  to 
dictate  to  teachers  is  entirely  erroneous"  That 

"  There  is  no  privity  of  contract  between  the  parents  of  pupils 
to  be  sent  to  school  and  the  school-master.  That  the  latter  is  em- 
ployed and  paid  by  the  town^  and  to  them  only  is  he  responsible 
on  his  contract"  That 

u  The  only  persons  who  have  a  legal  right  to  give  orders  to  the 
teacher  are  his  employers,  namely,  the  committee  in  some  States 
and  in  others  the  directors  or  trustees"  And  that 


A  Vital  Question  for  Public- School  Teachers.  103 

"If  his  conduct  is  approved  of  by  his  employers,  the  parents 
have  no  remedy  against  him  or  them" 

Excellent  teachers  of  common  schools  often  complain  that  their 
pupils  disregard  their  commands,  and  that  when  punished  for  so 
doing  their  parents  get  angry  and  use  harsh  and  insulting  language 
towards  them. 

To  the  common-school  teacher  who  does  not  stop  to  trace  effects 
back  to  their  legitimate  causes,  it  of  course  looks  very  unreasonable 
that  parents  should  get  angry  and  become  abusive  and  insulting  to 
them  because  of  their  having  inflicted  merited  punishment  upon 
their  children.  But  a  moment's  reflection  will  show  that  the  anger 
of  such  parents  is  not  after  all  so  unreasonable  .as  might  at  first 
blush  appear. 

Before  any  one  can  be  properly  entitled  to  punish  another  two 
things  are  essentially  necessary,  namely  : 

First,  the  punishment  should  be  just ;   and, 

Secondly,  it  should  come  from  one  having  authority  to  adminis- 
ter it. 

It  is  a  well-settled  principle  of  law  that  the  killing  of  the  very 
worst  murderer  in  the  world  by  one  not  properly  authorized  to  in- 
flict the  death  penalty,  even  after  such  criminal  has  been  tried,  con- 
victed, and  sentenced  to  death,  would  itself  be  murder.  Not, 
indeed,  because  the  murderer  did  not  deserve  killing,  but  because 
his  slayer  had  no  authority  to  kill  him. 

But  it  is  as  natural  with  an  individual  as  it  is  with  a  Government 
to  resent  any  unauthorized  invasion  by  another  of  his  personal  ju- 
risdiction and  authority.  Even  the  owner  of  a  dumb  brute  dislikes 
to  have  it  punished  by  another  without  his  individual  consent. 
Hence,  he  who  kicks  his  neighbor's  dog,  without  asking  that  neigh- 
bor's permission,  need  not  be  surprised  if  he  receive  another  kick 
in  return,  although  the  dog  may  have  richly  deserved  the  punish- 
ment. 

Is  it,  then,  surprising  if  parents  revolt  at  the  idea  of  having  their 
little  children,  their  own  flesh  and  blood  and  bone,  beat  and  bruised 
and  mangled,  not  by  their  authority,  but  by  the  authority  of  the 
town  ? 

Even  well-merited  chastisement,  when  inflicted  on  a  child,  cannot 
have  its  proper  effect  unless  the  child  is  made  to  realize  the  fact  that 
he  who  authorized  such  punishment  did  so  in  obedience  to  the  dic- 
tates of  a  loving  heart. 

But  where  is  there  a  child  that  God  has  blessed  with  an  affection- 
ate father  and  mother  that  is  so  stupid  as  not  to  know  that  for  it 


104  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

the  most  loving  heart  on  earth  is  the  parental  heart?  Yet,  whenever 
the  common-school  teacher  either  spares  the  rod  or  lays  on  the  lash, 
he  does  so,  as  we  have  seen,  not  by  parental  authority,  but  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  requirements  and  at  the  dictation  of  the  "  town'' 

Here,  then,  is  the  first  great  and  insurmountable  obstacle  which 
even  the  very  best  teachers  necessarily  encounter  in  their  efforts  to 
enforce  discipline  in  a  common  school,  namely,  the  wrong  source 
whence  they  derive  their  jurisdiction  and  authority  over  their  pupils. 

And  it  is  easy  to  see  that  this  difficulty  can  never  be  remedied 
under  the  present  system  ;  because  the  system  itself  is  at  war  with 
the  unchanging  and  unchangeable  laws  of  nature  and  nature's  God, 
commanding  children  to  love,  honor,  and  obey  their  fathers  and 
mothers,  but  not  commanding  them  to  obey  those  who  wrongfully 
usurp  their  fathers'  and  mothers'  places. 

Another  and  kindred  difficulty  which  bars  the  way  to  discipline, 
and  defies  the  best  intended  efforts  to  maintain  order  in  the  common 
schools — even  by  the  best  of  teachers — arises  in  part  from  a  want  of 
that  degree  of  freedom  and  independence  which  would  allow  the 
teacher  to  hearken  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  judgment.  On  every 
side  the  principals  and  teachers  of  the  common  schools  find  them- 
selves crippled,  haltered,  and  hampered  in  a  thousand  ways.  They 
are  hampered  by  statutory  school  laws  ;  hampered  by  State  boards 
of  education  ;  hampered  by  county  boards  and  by  city  boards  ;  ham- 
pered by  superintendents ;  hampered  by  the  ceaseless  criticisms, 
fault-findings,  and  backbitings  of  jealous  rivals,  who  have  either 
been  superseded  by  them  in  their  positions  as  teachers,  or  by  whom 
they  are  themselves  in  danger  of  being  superseded  ;  and  hampered 
by  the  ceaseless  dread  of  offending  in  the  person  of  some  influential 
ward  politician,  or  some  purse-proud  upstart  parent  who  demands 
special  privileges  for  his  precious  scion. 

In  the  first  place,  as  just  stated,  the  teacher  is  hampered  by  the 
statutory  school  laws  in  a  manner  to  defy  discipline. 

For  example :  We  all  know  how  fatal  to  the  discipline  of  a 
school  is  the  perpetual  presence  of  even  a  few  rude,  unruly  boys. 
And  yet  the  law  leaves  the  teachers  and  even  the  principals  of  pub- 
lic schools  utterly  helpless  so  far  as  any  power  of  their  own  is  con- 
cerned to  rid  their  schools  of  the  vilest  young  imps  that  ever 
breathed. 

For  instance,  we  have  a  statute  giving  to  school  directors  or  trus- 
tees the  sole  power  to  exclude  "filthy  or  'vicious  children  from 
school:' 

Under  the  operation  of  this  statute,  no  difference  how  unruly,  dis- 


A  Vital  Question  for  Public- School  Teachers.  105 

obedient,  or  vile  a  pupil  may  be,  nor  how  destructive  to  the  discipline 
of  the  school  his  pernicious  example  may  prove,  still  it  depends  upon 
the  trustees,  and  upon  them  alone,  to  either  rid  the  school  of  his 
presence  or  not  at  their  option. 

As  a  fair  illustration  of  the  disciplinary  workings  of  this  machine 
system  of  common  schools,  we  shall  here  repeat  an  anecdote  related 
by  the  inimitable  Gail  Hamilton,  at  page  109  of  her  spicy  little  book 
entitled 

"  OUR   COMMON-SCHOOL    SYSTEM." 

44  Not  long  ago,"  says  the  authoress,  "  a  boy  of  the  third  class,  in 
a  school  thoroughly  furnished  with  all  the  officers  required  by  our 
efficient  system,  was  eating  candy  in  school,  and  was  directed  by  his 
teacher  to  throw  it  into  the  waste-basket.  He  complied  at  once,  re- 
marking, as  he  passed  her,  that  she  was  4  a  d — d  fool,'  in  tones  loud 
enough  to  be  heard  throughout  the  room.  The  teacher  sent  him 
home,  and  appealed  to  the  superintendent  of  schools,  who  replied 
that  '  had  she  suspended  the  boy  he  could  do  something,  but  now 
did  not  like  to  interfere,  and  would  rather  the  committee  should  set- 
tle it.'  The  committee  were  consulted,  the  boy  remaining  in  the 
school  the  while,  and  the  committee  held  up  the  discipline  of  the 
school  and  the  beauties  of  the  4  system '  by  the  startling  assurance 
to  the  boy  that  for  the  next  offence,  of  whatever  nature,  he  was  to  be 
4  sent  to  me  !'  " 

Now,  it  can  require  but  very  little  calm  reflection  to  convince  even 
the  dullest  intellect  how  utterly  impossible  it  would  be  for  the  best 
teacher  in  America  to  maintain  the  discipline  of  his  or  her  school 
under  circumstances  like  these. 

By  thus  impliedly  excusing  the  boy  for  calling  his  teacher  a  fool, 
this  committee  virtually  joined  in  reiterating  the  odious  and  insult- 
ing epithet,  and  thereby  licensed  every  other  pupil  in  the  school  to 
manifest  their  regard  for  her  and  her  authority  in  a  similar  manner. 

If  it  be  said  that  this  was  only  an  isolated  case,  we  reply  that, 
while  this  particular  case  may  be  an  isolated  one,  the  spirit  of  in- 
subordination to  which  it  owes  its  origin  is  not  by  any  means  an 
isolated  or  an  exceptional  one,  as  the  above  quotation  from  "  The 
Daily  Common  School"  clearly  indicates,  and  as  the  daily  expe- 
rience of  our  public-school  teachers  throughout  the  country  abun- 
dantly attests. 

The  reasons  why  teachers  cannot,  as  a  rule,  rely  upon  school 
trustees  to  actively  and  cordially  second  their  efforts  to  maintain 
the  discipline  of  their  schools  have  already  been  dwelt  upon  ;  but 
a  few  more  words  in  this  connection  on  that  subject  may  not  be  out 
of  place. 


IO6  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

As  already  intimated,  it  very  often  happens  that  school  trustees 
do  not  have,  and  are  not  required  or  expected  by  those  to  whom  they 
are  chiefly  indebted  for  their  positions  to  have,  any  special  fitness  for 
their  offices  aside  from  an  unswerving  fidelity  to  their  friends, 
coupled  with  the  necessary  capacity  to  render  themselves  serviceable 
to  those  who  have  served  them.  Let  us  take,  then,  for  example  the 
case  of  the  boy  spoken  of  by  Gail  Hamilton,  who  had  called  his 
lady  teacher  a  fool.  The  boy's  conduct  is  reported  to  the  superin- 
tendent, whose  duty  it  is  supposed  to  be  to  protect  the  teacher  against 
insult  and  to  maintain  the  discipline  of  the  school.  But  it  so  hap- 
pens that  this  boy's  father  is  an  influential  ward  politician.  He 
belongs  to  the  same  political  party  as  the  superintendent.  He  did 
as  much  as  any  other  man,  if  not  more,  to  secure  his  nomination  for, 
and  his  election  to,  the  office  he  now  holds.  For  him  to  counsel  the 
boy's  expulsion  from  school  or  the  infliction  on  him  of  any  other  pun- 
ishment at  all  commensurate  with  his  offence  might  so  incense  his 
father  as  to  convert  him  from  a  warm  and  most  valuable  friend  into 
a  bitter  and  dangerous  foe.  "And,"  says  the  superintendent, 
"  another  election  is  near  at  hand,  when  I  shall  greatly  need  not  only 
my  friend's  vote,  but  the  votes  of  his  numerous  friends,  first  to  carry 
the  primaries  and  secure  my  renomination,  and  next  to  aid  me  at  the 
polls  on  the  day  of  election.  The  teacher  is  only  a  woman  anyhow. 
She  has  no  vote,  and  very  few,  if  any,  friends  whose  votes  she  can 
influence."  Therefore  he  shirks  a  responsibility1  which  the  duties 
of  his  office  seemed  to  impose  upon  him,  and  throws  it  upon  the 
shoulders  of  the  school  committee. 

But  when  the  school  committee  was  appealed  to  we  do  not  find 
that  the  matter  was  bettered  in  the  least.  And  if  the  whole  truth 
were  known,  it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  they  too  had  certain  per- 
sonal or  political  axes  of  their  own  to  grind,  and  were  also  looking 
to  the  father  of  the  offending  boy  for  help. 

But  whatever  may  have  been  the  particular  motive  of  the  school 
officials,  \hefact  remains  all  the  same  that  the  teacher  whom  they  had 
charged  with  the  duty  of  maintaining  the  discipline  of  the  school — just 
like  thousands  of  other  teachers  similarly  situated — found  herself  with- 
out the  necessary  authority,  and  utterly  powerless  to  perform  that  duty. 
Not  only  that ;  she  was  compelled,  in  humiliation  and  shame,  to 
pocket  a  most  outrageous  insult  at  the  hands  of  an  inferior,  perpe- 
trated in  the  presence  of  her  whole  school,  and  then  had,  moreover, 
to  submit  to  be  publicly  snubbed  by  those  whom  the  law  had  placed 

1  In  the  State  referred  to  by  Gail  Hamilton  the  law  slightly  varies  from  that  of  California  in  its 
details  but  not  in  its  principles. 


A  Vital  Question  for  Public- School  Teacher*.  107 

above  her,  because  she  had  dared  to  seek  for  relief  in  the  only  quar- 
ter where  the  law  allowed  her  to  seek  it. 

In  order  to  realize  how  truly  dependent,  how  pitiably  humiliating 
is  the  position  in  which  our  boasted  '''-system"  places  the  teachers 
of  its  schools,  it  is  only  necessary  to  consider  how  perilous  to  their 
positions  it  would  often  prove  for  them  to  even  attempt  the  enforce- 
ment of  discipline  amongst  their  pupils. 

Open,  as  our  common  schools  are,  to  all  kinds  of  children,  and 
the  children  of  all  kinds  of  parents,  how  rarely  can  it  be  truthfully 
said  of  one  of  these  schools  that  there  is  not  amongst  its  pupils  even 
one  who,  if  angered  by  its  teacher,  could,  through  its  parents, 
exert  sufficient  influence  over  some  one  or  more  members  of  the 
school  board  to  effect  the  teacher's  removal  ? 

And  if  even  one  such  pupil  be  found  in  school,  then  will  the  teacher 
feel  himself  completely  at  its  mercy. 

But  to  be  at  the  mercy  of  any  one  pupil  in  school  is  virtually  to  be 
at  the  mercy  of  all.  For  whenever  it  becomes  known  to  the  whole 
school  that  there  is  one  of  their  number  who  can  with  impunity  defy 
the  teacher's  authority,  it  will  no  longer  be  possible  to  find  even  so 
many  as  one  who,  in  the  light  of  such  knowledge,  will  respect  that 
authority. 

We  are  fully  aware  that  there  are  in  our  common  schools  many  in- 
competent teachers,  but  we  think  we  have  now  pretty  clearly  shown 
that  the  very  best  of  teachers  can  not,  as  a  rule,  maintain  discipline  in 
these  schools,  and  that  for  the  double  reason  that  the  teacher  has  too 
little  authority,  ^md  that  this  little  comes  from  the  wrong  source, 
namely,  from  the  public  instead  of  the  parent. 

The  failure  of  the  pupil  to  make  progress  in  his  studies  is  almost 
sure  to  be  attributed  to  the  teacher's  lack  of  ability  to  teach,  whereas 
this  failure  not  unfrequently  results  from  the  want  of  discipline. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  a  school  where  there  is  little  or 
no  discipline  there  can  be  little  or  no  progress.  It  requires  no  ar- 
gument to  prove  that  even  one  unruly  child,  whom  the  teacher  can 
neither  govern  nor  expel,  can  so  bedevil  an  entire  school  as  to  make 
study  impossible.  And  without  an  application  to  study  there  can 
be  no  improvement. 

The  teacher,  too,  is  generally  made  the  scape-goat  to  bear  the 
blame  for  all  the  demoralization  and  corruption  of  the  school ; 
whereas  if  St.  Peter  himself  were  the  principal  of  one  of  these 
schools,  with  all  the  other  apostles  as  assistant  teachers  ;  if  he  were 
compelled  to  receive  into  his  school  children  of  all  kinds,  classes, 
and  characters,  and  of  all  degrees  of  moral  depravity ;  if  his  au- 


io8  "  Poison  Drops'"  in  the  Pederal  Senate. 

thority  over  these  children  were  not  derived  from  their  parents,  but 
was  only  such  as  came  from  the  political  State  ;  if  he  had  not  the 
privilege  of  making  and  enforcing  rules  for  the  government  of  his 
school,  but  were  compelled  to  accept  whatever  rules  and  regulations 
such  a  board  of  politicians  as  the  trickeries,  the  frauds,  the  briberies, 
and  the  accidents  of  an  election  might  chance  to  place  in  power ; 
and  if,  besides  being  denied  the  authority  to  either  punish  or  expel, 
according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  judgment,  refractory  or  corrupt 
and  vicious  pupils,  he  was  furthermore  forbidden  to  inculcate  any 
principle  of  morality  having  for  its  object  a  higher  aim  than  the 
gratification  of  man's  animal  appetites  and  earthly  desires,  we  do 
not  hesitate  to  declare  it  as  our  firm  conviction,  based  on  the  fore- 
going reasons,  that,  as  a  rule,  under  such  a  system  and  subject  to  such 
degrading  and  humiliating  conditions,  not  even  St.  Peter,  with  all 
the  other  apostles  to  help  him,  would  find  it  possible,  in  the  natural 
order  of  things,  to  check  the  swelling  tide  of  common  school  im- 
morality and  crime.  Except  by  rare  chance,  he  could  neither 
reform  the  least  vicious  nor  shield  from  utter  ruin  the  most  virtuous 
children  in  his  school. 

If  we  are  at  fault  in  this  conclusion,  we  are  open  to  conviction, 
and  shall  take  it  as  a  favor  if  somebody  will  point  out  the  fallacy  of 
our  reasoning.  But  if  we  are  correct,  then  we  ask,  in  all  sincerity, 
if  it  is  just  and  right  to  throw  upon  the  teachers  of  our  public 
schools  all  the  blame  for  the  lying  and  lechery,  the  dishonesty,  im- 
piety, and  every  other  kind  and  degree  of  hopeless  depravity  which 
are  to-day  blasting  and  corrupting  so  many  millions  t>f  our  American 
common-school  children?  Every  honest,  intelligent,  and  capable 
common-school  teacher  sees,  feels,  and  laments  the  evils  of  which 
we  speak.  It  was  a  knowledge  of  these  evils  and  of  their  parent 
causes  which  drew  from  the  able  and  distinguished  Dr.  Joseph 
LeConte,  a  leading  professor  of  our  California  State  University,  in 
the  course  of  a  letter  to  the  writer  of  this  article,  the  remark  else- 
where quoted — 

"  That  any  education  which  weakens  the  family  tie  strikes  at  the 
very  foundation  of  society,  and  no  amount  of  good  in  other  directions 
can  atone  for  this  greatest  of  evils." 

It  was  this  same  knowledge  which  prompted  the  Hon.  Ezra  S. 
Carr,  former  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  in  his  offi- 
cial report  for  iSjS-JC).  page  39,  when  speaking  of  the  workings  of 
our  common  school  system,  to  declare  that — 

44  Dependence  on  one  side  and  patronage  on  the  other  destroy  the 


A  Vital  Question  for  Public- School  Teachers.  109 

free  and  harmonious  play  of  benefits  between  the   home  and  the 
school ;"  and  that 

"Private  institutions,  colleges,  and  seminaries  draw  away  our 
best  teachers,  who  thus  avoid  what  is,  to  a  sensitive  and  high- 
minded  teacher,  an  intolerable  burden." 

Similar  to  these  also  are  the  views  of  Gail  Hamilton,  a  writer 
already  quoted,  who,  at  page  203  of  her  book,  says : 

"  The  tendency  of  our  'system'  is  to  degrade  the  teachers  more 
and  more  by  the,  perhaps,  unconscious  subjection  of  the  teacher's 
duties  to  the  machinery." 

On  page  306  she  adds : 

"  The  '  system '  is  constantly  degrading  teachers  into  menials,  and 
concentrating  authority  in  the  hands  of  outside  men  who  have  noth- 
ing whatever  to  do  with  the  actual  teaching,  and  have  the  slightest 
possible  contact  with  the  children." 

Now,  we  ask  in  all  candor,  if  it  is  possible  to  degrade  the  teacher 
without  degrading  the  pupil  also?  Can  you  degrade  the  master 
without  degrading  the  disciple? 

There  is,  there  can  be,  no  higher  or  more  honorable  occupation 
on  this  earth  than  that  of  a  teacher  who  understands  his  calling 
and  faithfully  discharges  its  duties.  Amongst  all  the  poets,  orators, 
sages,  statesmen,  and  heroes  of  ancient  Greece,  where  is  there  one 
whose  illustrious  name  shines  to-day  with  so  bright  and  unfading 
a  lustre  as  that  of  Socrates,  the  teacher  of  Athenian  youth?  And 
were  we  to  blot  out  from  the  history  of  China  the  name  and  the 
teachings,  and  the  fruits  of  the  teachings,  of  Confucius,  it  would,  so 
far  as  that  country  is  concerned,  be  like  blotting  the  sun  from  the 
heavens.  The  great  mission  of  the  Messiah  Himself,  on  earth,  was 
that  of  teacher. 

Whatever  country  can  boast  of  its  great  statesmen,  great  orators, 
great  warriors,  great  jurists,  great  scientists,  or  of  the  great  intelli- 
gence, morality,  and  virtue  of  its  people,  must  acknowledge  that, 
next  to  God,  it  is  to  its  teachers  it  owes  its  highest  debt  of  gratitude 
for  so  inestimable  a  boon. 

But  how  is  it  possible  for  a  teacher,  though  never  so  well  qual- 
ified for  his  position,  to  earn  this  gratitude,  who  is  not  allowed  to 
exercise  his  teaching  qualifications? 

Brought,  as  he  is,  in  direct  contact  with,  and  required  to  govern, 
to  teach,  and  to  develop  in  due  proportions  all  the  faculties  of  a 
multitude  of  children,  widely  differing  in  mental  powers,  in  moral 
training,  in  natural  dispositions,  in  tastes,  in  physical  constitutions, 


no  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

and  in  their  modes  of  daily  home  life,  there  is  probably  no  other 
calling  which  requires  the  exercise  of  more  unrestrained  freedom 
of  action  than  does  the  calling  of  a  principal  or  teacher  of  a  school. 
And  yet  there  is  no  other  calling  in  which  so  little  freedom  is  allowed 
in  the  performance  of  its  duties. 

Thus,  for  example,  the  physician  who  undertakes  to  doctor  a 
patient  reserves  the  liberty  to  prescribe  both  the  kind  and  quantity 
of  the  medicines  to  be  used,  and  the  intervals  at  which  they  are  to 
be  taken,  as  well  as  the  right  to  change  his  treatment  whenever  in 
his  judgment  such  change  is  desirable.  So,  also,  the  mechanic  who 
undertakes  the  job  of  building  a  good  house  always  reserves  the 
right  both  to  choose  his  tools  and  to  reject  rotten  or  defective  mate- 
rials. But  the  common-school  teacher  can  neither  reject  intractable 
nor  rotten  timber  nor  select  the  tools  (the  books)  with  which  he  is 
to  do  his  work. 

Not  even  the  calling  of  a  kitchen  servant  is  near  so  dependent 
and  servile  as  that  of  a  common-school  teacher  under  our  present 
system,  because  even  the  kitchen  servant  has  but  one  mistress  to 
please  in  order  to  retain  her  place  and  earn  her  bread ;  whereas 
the  common-school  teacher,  as  we  have  seen,  imperils  his  position 
every  time  he  angers  a  child  and  incurs  the  displeasure  of  a  parent 
who  has  influence  with  the  school  trustees. 

Perhaps  we  may  be  asked,  wherein  consists  the  difference  between 
the  freedom  or  independence  belonging  to  a  private-school  teacher 
and  that  which  is  enjoyed  by  the  teacher  of  a  public  school  ? 

We  think  that  enough  has  already  been  said  to  render  such 
difference  quite  apparent ;  but  inasmuch  as  this  is  a  very  important 
branch  of  our  subject,  a  few  words  more  on  that  point  may  not  be 
amiss. 

In  the  first  place,  the  man  who  proposes  to  establish  a  private 
school,  just  like  a  lawyer,  a  doctor,  a  merchant,  a  banker,  or  u 
mechanic,  when  seeking  to  build  up  a  business,  will  rely  chiefly 
upon  his  individual  capacity  and  merit  in  order  to  secure  employ- 
ment. If  he  intends  to  make  teaching  his  permanent  business — 
and  if  not  he  had  better  go  at  something  else — he  will  either  buy, 
build,  or  rent  his  own  school-house  and  premises,  and  procure  his 
own  school  furniture.  He  will  then  establish  his  own  rules  and 
regulations,  as  well  for  the  admission  and  expulsion  of  pupils  as 
for  their  government  and  discipline  while  under  his  charge.  These 
rules  and  regulations  he  will  make  known  to  those  whose  patronage 
he  desires  to  secure,  so  that  every  parent  or  guardian  who  sends  his 
children  to  such  school  will  understand,  at  least  in  general  terms, 


A  Vital  Question  for  Ptiblic- School  Teachers.  in 

not  only  the  rules  by  which  they  are  to  be  governed,  but  also  the 
character  of  the  pupils  with  whom  they  are  to  associate.  The 
teacher  will  also  select  for  the  use  of  his  school  the  particular  books 
by  the  use  of  which  he  believes  himself  capable  of  accomplishing 
the  best  results. 

When  parents  send  their  children  to  such  a  school,  it  is  because 
they  agree  with  the  teacher  as  to  what  sort  of  school  is  best  for 
their  children.  In  such  a  school  there  is  no  conflict  or  clashing 
between  the  jurisdiction  of  the  parent  and  that  of  the  teacher ; 
because  it  is  from  the  parents  of  each  pupil,  and  only  from  its 
parents,  that  the  teacher  derives  his  authority  tq  direct  jt,  to  teach 
it,  to  admonish  it,  to  command  it,  and  to  enforce  its  obedience  ; 
and  it  is  to  the  parents,  and  only  to  the  parents  of  each,  that  he 
stands  amenable  for  the  manner  in  which  he  uses  or  abuses  his 
powers.  In  such  a  school,  so  long  as  the  teacher  keeps  within  the 
scope  of  his  authority,  his  counsels,  his  commands,  and  his  chas- 
tisements become  the  counsels,  the  commands,  and  the  chastise- 
ments of  the  child's  own  parents,  because  they  come  backed  by  pa- 
rental authority  and  bearing  the  seal  of  the  parental  sanction. 
Should  the  pupil  of  a  private  school  demand  of  his  teacher  by 
what  authority  he  requires  him  to  study  this  or  that  book,  to  refrain 
from  this  or  that  forbidden  practice,  to  be  present  at  a  given  hour,  or 
to  retire  at  the  tap  of  a  particular  bell,  the  teacher  need  only  reply— 

••  It  is  by  the  authority  of  your  father,  who  loves  you  as  he  loves 
his  own  life.  It  was  he,  of  his  own  free-will  and  choice — without 
reference  to  what  others  might  think,  say,  or  do — who  placed  you 
here.  He  selected  this  school  because  he  himself  had  confidence  in 
its  teachers,  approved  of  its  rules,  its  discipline,  and  its  course  of 
study.  Therefore  you  cannot  violate  the  rules  of  the  school,  nor 
refuse  obedience  to  its  teachers,  without  disobeying  your  own  father 
and  mother,  disobeying  God,  and  proving  yourself  an  unnatural, 
undutiful,  and  ungrateful  child." 

And  what  stronger  motives — to  discipline  and  study — than  these 
could  possibly  be  placed  before  the  mind  of  an  intelligent  and  well- 
bred  youth  ? 

But  suppose  that  the  private  teacher,  after  having  exhausted  his 
authority  in  the  way  of  counsel  and  correction,  should  still  find  his 
pupil  refractory.  What  then?  Why,  he  would  dismiss  or  expel 
him  of  course.  And  if  the  father  of  the  dismissed  pupil  should 
even  have  the  wealth  of  the  Vanderbilts,  the  Goulds,  the  Stanfords, 
and  the  Crockers  combined,  still  he  would  not  be  able,  even  if  so 


H2  "  Poison  Drops  "  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

disposed,  either  to  damage  the  school  or  to  frighten  the  teacher  out 
of  one  moment's  peace  of  mind. 

The  noble  independence  of  such  a  proceeding  could  but  result  in 
improving  the  discipline,  strengthening  the  popularity,  and  swelling 
the  ranks  of  the  school.  The  expulsion  of  such  a  pupil  could  no 
more  destroy  the  teacher's  patronage  than  one  of  the  Egyptian  pyr- 
amids could  be  destroyed  or  overturned  by  plucking  a  single  rotten 
pebble  from  its  base  and  replacing  it  with  a  solid  stone. 

In  cases  of  punishments  not  amounting  to  dismissal  or  expulsion, 
the  most  that  any  dissatisfied  patron  could  do  would  be  to  withdraw 
his  own  children  from  school.  But  in  all  such  cases  let  the  teacher 
be  sure  to  have  right  on  his  side,  and  for  every  pupil  thus  with- 
drawn he  will  gain  two  in  its  place.  When  a  teacher  has  once  suc- 
ceeded in  thus  establishing  a  school  of  his  own,  resting  on  no  other 
foundation  than  its  merits,  he  is  no  more  afraid  of  being  turned  out 
of  his  employment  and  left  without  the  means  of  a  support,  because 
of  having  incurred  the  displeasure  of  one  or  a  dozen  discontented 
patrons  of  his  school,  than  a  lawyer,  a  doctor,  or  a  merchant,  when 
backed  by  the  unbounded  confidence  of  nearly  an  entire  community, 
would  be  afraid  of  having  his  business  ruined,  and  himself  reduced 
to  beggary,  because  of  having  incurred  the  enmity  of  a  few  unrea- 
soning fault-finders. 

Where,  then,  we  would  ask,  is  there  a  teacher  to  be  found  who 
would  not  to-day  infinitely  prefer  the  princely  independence  of 
teaching  and  managing  a  school  under  parental  auspices,  relying 
for  patronage  solely  on  his  or  her  own  merits — provided,  of  course, 
there  are  any  merits  to  rely  upon — rather  than  be  compelled,  as  mul- 
titudes now  are  compelled,  to  beg,  entreat,  flatter,  and  fawn  at  the 
feet  of  pot-house  politicians  and  public-school  boards  for  the  poor 
and  pitiful  privilege  of  playing  the  menial  to  their  inferiors  as  the 
price  of  bread  ? 

But  here  the  inquiry  presents  itself:  How  would  it  be  possible 
for  all  our  public-school  teachers,  even  if  all  were  fully  capable  of 
teaching,  to  find  a  living  patronage  for  schools  under  "  parental  au- 
spices," so  long  as  multitudes  of  parents  would  be  unable  to  pay 
anything  for  their  children's  education,  while  other  multitudes 
would  be  unwilling,  after  paying  their  school  taxes  into  the  public 
treasury,  to  pay,  virtually,  a  second  time  for  their  children's  educa- 
tion. 

This,  we  confess,  is,  to  a  large  extent,  an  insurmountable  difficulty, 
so  long  as  the  present  anti-parental  and  teacher-enslaving  system 
remains  intact.  Although  so  odious  is  this  system  becoming  in  the  eyes 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


A  Vital  Question  for  Ptiblic-SchooT'^^trcfrers.  113 


of  thinking  parents,  as  well  as  of  intelligent  teachers,  that  educational 
institutions  established  and  run  under  private  auspices  are  every 
day  growing  more  and  more  into  public  favor.  But  for  this  fact, 
ex-Superintendent  Carr  would  not  have  been  able  truthfully  to  de- 
clare, in  the  language  already  quoted,  that  — 

"  Private  institutions,  colleges,  and  seminaries  draw  away 
our  best  teachers,  who  thus  avoid  what  is  to  a  sensitive  and 
high-minded  teacher  an  intolerable  burden" 

Yet  it  is  only  a  comparatively  limited  number  of  parents  who  feel 
able  to  protect  their  children  from  the  demoralizing  and  blighting 
effects  of  a  State-school  training,  at  so  heavy  a  cost  as  the  paying 
a  second  time  for  their  education. 

But,  if  it  is  true,  as  asserted  by  Prof.  Joseph  LeConte  in  his 
letter  already  quoted  — 

That  ^private  schools,  each  parent  choosing  his  own,  furnish  a 
better  education,  all  things  considered,  that  any  public-school 
system  ;  "  and  if  it  is  also  true,  as  maintained  by  ex-Superintendent 
Carr,  that  the  public-school  atmosphere  is  so  much  more  uncon- 
genial and  unwholesome  for  "  high-minded  teachers  "  than  is  to  be 
found  in  "private  institutions;"  in  other  words,  if  private  institu- 
tions are  so  much  better  than  the  public  ones,  both  for  teachers 
and  pupils,  then  we  are  confronted  with  this  important  question, 
namely  : 

Does  not  common  sense  suggest,  and  do  not  the  true  interests 
both  of  teachers  and  pupils  demand,  that  the  aforesaid  schools  of  the 
better  kind  be  multiplied,  and  those  of  the  inferior  kind  diminished 
in  numbers,  in  patronage,  and  in  influence?  And  ought  not  this  to 
be  done  as  quickly  and  as  rapidly  as  possible,  until  not  a  teacher 
in  America,  who  is  unwilling  to  be  a  slave  for  the  pitiful  considera- 
tion of  a  most  precarious  salary,  and  not  a  child,  whose  parents 
have  so  much  as  the  least  appreciation  of  the  dignity  or  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  parental  office,  shall  any  longer  be  victimized  upon 
the  altar  of  our  false,  servile,  and  ruinous  system  of  education? 

It  seems  clear  to  our  mind  that  this  question  can  only  be  answered 
in  the  affirmative,  and  that,  therefore,  the  only  remaining  inquiry 
is,  as  to  how  so  desirable  a  result  can  be  accomplished. 

As  for  ourselves  we  shall  be  satisfied  with  any  just  and  practicable 
mode  of  accomplishing  the  end  proposed.  But  until  some  other 
and  better  plan  be  suggested  we  shall  still  insist  upon  that  which  is 
outlined  in  the  seventh  proposition  of  our  platform  of  principles. 
(See  ante  Chap.  XIV.) 


114  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

We  are  convinced  that  this,  or  some  similar  plan,  by  throwing 
open  the  whole  business  of  teaching  school  to  private  enterprise 
and  free  competition,  leaving  every  parent  and  guardian  to  select  a 
school  to  suit  himself,  and  requiring  the  State  to  pay  for  a  good 
common  secular  education  ac.cording  to  results  in  all  cases  where 
parents  are  unable  to  pay,  would  call  to  the  front  the  very  best  and 
ablest  teachers  that  the  country  affords.  The  adoption  of  such  a 
plan  would  shatter  the  fetters  that  hold  in  bondage  thousands  of 
really  good  and  competent  teachers  in  our  common  schools,  whose 
usefulness  is  now  being  destroyed,  and  the  light  of  whose  genius  is 
being  smothered  beneath  the  accumulated  rubbish  of  senseless  rules 
and  meaningless  formalities. 

Undoubtedly  many  of  these  teachers  are  capable  of  taking  their 
places  in  the  very  front  ranks  of  the  world's  greatest  educational 
benefactors.  And  yet,  after  long  years  of  labor,  vexation,  and  dis- 
appointment, they  find  themselves  neither  understood  nor  appre- 
ciated, either  in  the  public-school  department  or  out  of  it.  And 
the  reason  is  that  they  are  so  circumscribed  and  hampered  in  their 
work  that  they  have  no  more  chance  of  displaying  their  real 
powers  than  an  eagle  would  have  to  prove  its  ability  to  fly  while 
kept  in  a  cage  with  a  baboon  for  a  keeper. 

There  is,  however,  another  class  of  public-school  teachers  who, 
like  counterfeit  coin,  often  pass  for  much  more  than  their  value. 
In  fact,  owing  to  a  certain  false  and  brassy  glitter  which  they  put 
on,  they  frequently  outshine  the  pure  gold  of  genuine  worth. 

But  it  is  to  the  former  class  of  public-school  teachers  that  we  now 
appeal  for  their  countenance  and  support  in  aid  of  educational 
reform  upon  the  plan  just  indicated. 

Inasmuch  as  the  establishment  of  this  plan  will  result  in  forc- 
ing every  teacher  to  rise  or  fall,  to  sink  or  swim,  to  survive  or  per- 
ish, according  to  his  own  individual  merits  or  demerits,  we  know 
it  would  be  vain  for  us  to  expect  either  aid,  sympathy,  or  counte- 
nance from  that  other  class  of  teachers  who,  being  conscious  of 
their  own  unfitness  to  teach  a  school,  know  full  well  that  under 
the  plan  we  propose  their  teaching  career  would  be  at  an  end. 

To  illustrate  :  Let  us  suppose  that  by  the  same  cord  we  were  to 
bind  an  eagle  and  a  monkey  to  an  inflated  balloon  ;  both  would  as- 
cend with  equal  velocity,  and  both  would  rise  equally  high  ;  but 
this  would  be  a  very  poor  test  of  their  comparative  powers  of 
flight. 

If,  however,  when  in  mid-air,  it  were  proposed,  in  language  in- 
telligible to  them  both,  to  cut  the  cord  which  held  them  to  the 


A   Vital  Question  for  Public- School  Teachers.  115 

balloon,  we  think  it  would  not  be  hard  to  tell,  from  the  joyous 
and  triumphant  screams  of  the  eagle  compared  with  the  pitiful 
shrieks  and  squalls  of  the  monkey,  which  of  the  two  could  fly  and 
which  must  fall. 

Like  unto  this  inflated  balloon  is  our  common -school  system. 
Like  unto  an  eagle  tied  to  this  balloon  is  many  an  able  and  highly- 
accomplished  teacher,  who  could  soar  far  higher  without  the  system 
than  with  it :  and  like  unto  this  monkey  is  many  a  worthless  fraud, 
who  rises  and  soars  with  the  system,  but  who  could  neither  rise  nor 
soar  without  it. 

Naturally  enough,  these  are  the  implacable  foes  of  the  reform  for 
which  we  plead.  The  others  are  at  heart  its  friends. 

The  time  has  now  arrived  when  it  behooves  these  friends  of  gen- 
uine educational  reform  who  hold  positions  in  the  public-school  de- 
partment to  be  up  and  doing.  They  have  the  power,  if  they  will 
but  use  it,  to  do  more  for  the  advancement  of  this  great  cause  than 
any  other  class  of  citizens,  and  in  proportion  to  their  power  will  be 
their  responsibility.  Their  reputation,  too,  more  than  that  of  any 
other  class,  is  invohed  in  the  issues  here  at  stake. 

It  is  every  day  becoming  more  and  more  apparent,  from  the  in- 
spection of  statistics,  that  all  over  the  country  the  growth  of  crime 
is  commensurate  with  the  spread,  growth,  and  development  of  our 
common-school  system. 

To  show  that  this  growth  of  crime  is  going  on  within  the  temples 
of  learning,  and  under  the  very  eyes  of  our  public -school  teachers, 
we  need  only  remind  our  readers  of  the  statements  repeatedly  quoted 
by  us,  not  only  of  leading  public-school  teachers  of  California,  but 
also  of  Massachusetts,  the  boasted  mother  of  the  system. 

For  example  :  In  the  month  of  December,  1881,  a  California  State 
Teachers'  Institute  was  held  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  and  in  the 
progress  of  its  proceedings  several  of  the  leading  teachers  of  our 
State  schools  made  speeches,  in  the  course  of  which,  with  scarcely 
a  dissenting  voice,  it  was  declared  that  the  children  of  our  public 
schools  were  addicted  to  '''•lying and  dishonesty.1'  (See  reports  of 
these  speeches  in  the  daily  Chronicle,  Call,  and  Examiner  of  De- 
cember 28,  29,  1881  ;  also  see  Defender  of  March,  1882.) 

And  we  have  on  several  occasions  quoted  the  report,  made  by  a 
committee  of  ladies,  touching  the  result  of  their  visits  to  the  public 
schools  of  Massachusetts,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their  moral 
condition,  wherein  they  declared  that — 

"  The  teachers  almost  universally  complain  of  the  prevalence  of 
lying,  stealing,  profanity,  and  impurity  among  their  scholars" 
(See  S.  J?.  Chronicle,  October  3,  1880.) 


Ii6  "Poison  Drops'"  in  the  federal  Senate. 

Then,  again,  we  have  the  statement,  more  general  in  its  nature, 
quoted,  as  above,  from  the  "  Daily  Public  School,"  declaring  that 
"  The  most  frequent  failures  noticed  in  the  reports  are  in  the  mat- 
ter of  discipline  or  government  " 

And,  of  course,  where  there  is  "no  discipline"  or  "govern- 
ment "  there  is  no  progress  in  knowledge,  and  no  check  upon 
vicious  children  or  the  growth  of  vice. 

Now,  the  great  and  overshadowing  question  to  which  we  desire 

to  call  the  attention  of  the  public-school  teachers  of  America  is  this  : 

Where  lies  the  chief  blame  for  this  want  of  discipline,  and 

this    consequent  growth    of  demoralization    and  crime,   in    the 

public  schools? 

Is  it  true,  as  claimed  by  the  author  of  the  "  Daily  Public  School," 
that  the  fault  is  in  the  teachers  ?  Or  is  it  true,  as  claimed  by  us, 
that  the  fault  is  in  the  system  itself,  by  which  the  teachers  are  con- 
trolled? 

And  are  we,  or  are  we  not,  correct  when  we  assert  that,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  the  very  best  teachers  in  the  world,  under  this  system,  can 
have  no  satisfactory  assurance  of  being  able  to  preserve  proper  dis- 
cipline or  prevent  the  spread  and  growth  of  immorality  and  crime 
amongst  their  pupils  ? 

Should  any  public-school  teacher  take  the  ground  that  the  fault 
lies  not  in  the  "  system  "  but  in  the  teachers,  we  shall  then  ask  him 
to  tell  us  by  what  practical  process,  taking  things  as  we  find  them, 
it  would  be  possible,  under  our  existing  "  system,"  to  rid  ourselves 
of  the  present  incompetent  teachers  and  to  replace  them  with  better 
ones. 

But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  as  we  anticipate  will  be  the  case,  every 
intelligent  and  really  competent  teacher  will,  on  mature  reflection, 
agree  that  the  chief  fault  lies  with  our  false  system  of  education,  then 
we  shall  earnestly  ask,  and  confidently  expect,  the  co-operation  of 
every  such  teacher  in  our  earnest  efforts  to  sunder  the  shackles  where- 
with this  "  system  "  enslaves  him,  and  binds  down,  in  the  dungeons 
both  of  ignorance  and  vice,  millions  of  America's  loveliest,  brightest, 
and  most  gifted  sons  and  daughters. 


between  Parental  and  anti- Parental  Systems.    117 


CHAPTEE  XVI. 

COMPARISON  BETWEEN  THE  PARENTAL  AND  ANTI-PARENTAL  EDUCATIONAL 
SYSTEMS  IN  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  GREAT  MEN — DOES  OPPOSITION  TO 
ANTI-PARENTAL  EDUCATION  ARISE  FROM  BIGOTRY  ? 

EXTRACT  from  a  speech  on  the  school  question,  delivered  by  the 
author  before  the  Convention  Committee  on  Education,  at  Sacra- 
mento City,  November  20,  1878  : 

After  two  hundred  years'  trial,  your  Massachusetts  State  system 
produced  annually,  in  proportion  to  her  population,  ten  times  as  many 
native  white  criminals,  nearly  twice  as  many  native  white  paupers, 
four  times  as  many  suicides  of  all  classes,  more  than  three  times  as 
many  deaths  from  syphilis,  and  one  and  a  half  times  as  many  in- 
sane persons  as  did  the  parental  system  of  Virginia. 

Then  tell  me  what  superior  advantage  Massachusetts  has  derived 
over  Virginia  from  her  anti-parental  system  of  education.  Is  it  found 
in  the  greater  number  and  ability  of  her  statesmen,  in  the  superior  elo- 
quence of  her  orators,  or  in  the  greater  courage,  skill,  and  heroic 
achievements  of  her  warriors? 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  Massachusetts  has  given  to  our  country 
some  of  its  very  brightest  and  ablest  literary  men.  The  names  of 
Prescott,  Everett,  and  Bancroft — all  students  of  Harvard  University — 
and  of  William  Cullen  Bryant,  who  studied  at  Williams  College, 
and  of  many  other  illustrious  children  of  the  old  Bay  State,  are 
familiar  as  household  words,  and  are  pronounced  with  just  pride 
wherever  the  English  language  is  spoken  ;  but  it  would  be  difficult 
to  trace  the  literary  greatness  of  one  of  these  distinguished  men  to 
public-school  training. 

It  is  also  true  that  Massachusetts  gave  birth  to  the  illustrious  Ben- 
jamin Franklin,  but  he  was  far  more  indebted  for  his  education  to 
his  own  mighty  intellect,  his  indomitable  perseverance,  and  the 
training  of  a  Philadelphia  printing  office,  than  to  the  public  schools 
of  his  native  State.  It  is  equally  true  that  Massachusetts  has  given 
to  the  country  two  of  its  Presidents — the  elder  and  the  younger 
Adams.  But  it  is  no  less  true  that  they,  too,  were  both  educated  at 
Harvard  University,  an  institution  which  owes  its  origin  rather  to 
the  private  munificence  of  an  Englishman  than  to  the  bounty  of  the 
State  of  Massachusetts.  But  as  against  these  and  a  few  lesser  lights 
born  upon  the  soil  of  Massachusetts,  look  at  old  Virginia's  bright 
and  glorious  galaxy  of  statesmen,  orators,  and  military  heroes  !  Look 
at  the  long  line  of  illustrious  Presidents  she  has  given  to  the  Repub- 
lic, beginning  with  the  immortal  Washington,  the  "  Father  of  his 
Country,"  followed  by  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Harrison, 
Tyler,  and  the  unconquerable  old  "  Rough  and  Ready,"  the  hero  of 
Buena  Vista.  It  was  she  who  gave  to  our  country  the  author  of 
the  world-renowned  Declaration  of  American  Independence.  It  was 
she  who  gave  us  that  matchless  orator,  the  incomparable  Patrick 


n8  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

Henry,  whose  burning  eloquence  fired  the  American  heart  with  the 
thrilling  sentiments  of  that  noble  Declaration.  To  her  belongs  the 
honor  of  having  given  us  the  General-in-Chief  to  lead  our  half- 
famishing  and  half-naked  armies  triumphantly  through  the  terrible 
and  bloody  war  of  the  Revolution. 

And  when  engaged  in  our  more  recent  struggle  with  a  neighbor- 
ing republic,  they  were  Virginia's  chosen  sons,  Zachary  Taylor  and 
Winfield  Scott,  who  carried  our  victorious  arms  in  triumph  into  the 
very  capital  city  of  Mexico,  and  won  for  us  this  Golden  State, 
whose  destinies  you,  gentlemen,  now  hold  in  your  hands.  Then, 
again,  when  our  late  terrible  civil  war  burst  upon  the  country,  there 
stood  at  the  head  of  each  opposing  host  a  child  of  Old  Virginia  ;  and 
throughout  that  fearful  contest  did  the  military  prowess  of  the  Old 
Dominion  shine  forth  in  all  its  pristine  splendor. 

However  widely  men  may  honestly  d Offer  as  to  the  merits  of  that 
contest,  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  manly  courage, 
the  splendid  generalship,  and  the  dauntless  heroism  of  General 
Lee,  of  Stonewall  Jackson,  Turner  Ashby,  A.  P.  Hill,  Joseph  E. 
Johnston,  and  a  host  of  other  Confederate  generals,  whose  earliest 
footprints  were  marked  upon  the  soil  of  Old  Virginia. 

And  against  this  mighty  galaxy  of  generals  whom  Virginia  gave 
to  the  Confederate  cause,  what  did  Massachusetts  do  for  the  other 
side?  Why,  she  gave  you  the  Union-sliding  Banks  and  Benjamin 
F.  Butler,  which  last  was  not  her  own  child,  by-the-by,  but  one 
who,  like  the  great  Daniel  Webster,  had  been  imported  from  the 
granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire.  *  *  * 

Your  humble  servant  has  been  sometimes  charged  with  being  a 
bigoted  Roman  Catholic,  and  with  seeking  to  establish  the  public- 
school  system  on  a  sectarian  basis.  Now,  that  you  may  know  how 
far  my  Catholic  sectarianism  carries  me  on  this  school  question,  al- 
low me  to  assure  you  that,  while  I  am  an  humble  member  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  recognize  to  its  fullest  extent  the 
teaching  authority  of  that  Church  in  religious  matters,  and,  with  a 
very  few  isolated  exceptions,  have  the  highest  respect  for  the  learn- 
ing, ability,  and  piety  of  its  clergy,  yet  if  every  priest  and  bishop 
in  California  and  in  America,  backed  by  the  Holy  Father,  the  Pope 
of  Rome  himself,  should  do  so  improbable  and  unwarranted  a  thing 
as  to  command  me  to  send  my  child  to  be  educated  by  a  particular 
teacher,  whom  I,  as  the  father  of  the  child,  should  conscientiously 
believe  an  unsuitable  person  to  be  entrusted  with  that  important 
work,  it  would  not  only  be  my  right,  but  my  bounden  duty,  both  as 
a  Roman  Catholic  and  a  parent,  to  disobey  the  command  ;  and 
why?  Because  this  a  matter  in  which  the  law  of  nature  throws 
upon  me  the  responsibility  of  acting  according  to  my  own  best  judg- 
ment, based  upon  all  the  lights  within  my  reach.  Leaving  all  other 
considerations  aside,  is  itatall  probable  that  even  all  these  priests,  bish- 
ops, and  Pope,  with  all  their  learning  and  piety,  could  know  as 
much  of  the  teacher's  real  character  as  I,  the  father,  who  daily  read 
that  character  in  the  language  and  conduct  of  my  own  child  ? 

And  suppose  that  from  that  language  and  conduct,  or  from  any 


Comparison  between  Parental  and  anti-Parental  Systems.    119 

other  source  of  information,  I,  the  parent,  should  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  teacher  of  my  young  son  or  daughter  is  an  unprin- 
cipled libertine,  whose  detestable  conduct  or  vile  maxims  would, 
in  a  single  day.  or,  perhaps,  in  a  single  moment,  corrupt  and  ruin 
my  child — shall  it  be  said  that  I  must  still  wait  until  my  priest  or 
bishop,  or  any  other  man,  whether  he  be  churchman  or  statesman, 
shall  grant  me  permission  to  snatch  my  child  from  the  jaws  of  de- 
struction ? 

No!  no!  This  is  a  power,  an  authority  over  my  child,  which, 
whilst  living,  I  can  neither  entrust  to  nor  divide  with  any  other  man. ] 

And  the  very  same  right  which  I  claim  for  myself  I  claim  for  every 
other  parent,  be  he  Catholic,  Protestant,  Jew,  or  non-religionist; 
and  this  is  the  length,  the  breadth,  the  height,  the  depth,  and  the 
thickness  of  my  Roman  Catholic  sectarianism  on  the  school  ques- 
tion ;  and  when  I  speak  thus  I  believe  I  speak  the  sentiments  of 
every  well  instructed  Roman  Catholic  in  the  world,  except  it  be  a 
certain  nondescript  kind  usually  styling  themselves  Liberal  Catho- 
lics, and  whom,  in  California,  you  may  generally  know  by  the  fact 
that,  whenever  in  their  presence  the  charge  of  religious  bigotry  is 
preferred  against  your  humble  servant  in  connection  with  this  school 
question,  they  always  stand  ready  to  shout  Amen!  to  the  slander. 

This  is  a  class  of  Catholics,  every  one  of  whom,  while  agreeing 
with  me  that  it  would  be  wrong  to  surrender  his  parental  authority 
to  any  bishop  or  priest,  no  matter  how  learned  and  holy  he  might 
be,  would  not  at  the  same  time  hesitate  to  divide  that  authority  with 
every  hoodlum  and  loafer  and  bummer  and  drunkard  ;  with  every 
thief,  rake,  and  robber,  provided  only  they  have  votes  with  which  to 


1  The  question  may  perhaps  be  asked  :  Does  not  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  to-day  command  its  members  to  withhold  their  children 
from  anti-parental  and  Godless  public  schools?  And  do  not  Catho- 
lic parents  consider  themselves  in  conscience  bound  to  obey  the 
command?  We  answer  most  assuredly,  Yes  !  And  if  that  Church 
should  command  its  members  to  keep  their  children  out  of  the  fire, 
every  intelligent  and  conscientious  Catholic  parent  would  doubtless 
feel  bound  to  obey  that  command  also.  But  suppose  a  priest  or 
bishop  or  Pope,  or  all  these  combined,  not  only  in  violation  of  the 
command  of  their  Church,  but  in  defiance  of  the  plainest  dictates 
of  the  natural  law,  should  order  a  Catholic  parent  to  cast  his 
children  into  the  fire,  would  it  logically  follow  from  the  fore- 
going proposition  that  he  must  obey  such  an  order  as  this?  On 
the  contrary,  the  moral  law  being  incorporated  into  the  Catholic's 
creed,  and  forming,  as  it  does,  an  essential  part  thereof,  no  Catholic, 
who  has  been  sufficiently  educated  in  his  religion  to  know  what  the 
moral  law  is,  can  ever  regard  it  as  a  conscientious  duty  to  violate 
that  law  in  obedience  to  the  dictates  of  any  mortal  man.  Hence  we 
do  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  if  the  Pope  himself  should  command  a 
Catholic  parent,  or  any  other  parent,  to  send  his  children  to  an  anti- 
parental,  Godless,  and  crime-producing  school,  against  his  own 
judgment  and  conscience,  it  would  be  his  duty  not  to  obey. 


I2O  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

lift  his  miserable  carcass  into  some  petty  office,  where,  with  the  prefix 
of  honorable  to  his  name,  he  will  seek  to  cover  his  worse  than 
Judas-like  treason — treason  to  his  children,  treason  to  his  country, 
and  treason  to  his  God. 

It  has  not  unfrequently  been  said  to  me  :  "  Were  it  not  for  your 
radical  and  uncompromising  notions  on  the  school  question  you 
could  have  this  office,  and  that  office,  and  the  other  office."  I  now 
give  due  notice,  both  to  my  friends  and  my  foes,  that  I  recognize 
no  more  honorable  office  on  earth  than  the  office  of  vindicating 
down-trodden  truth,  and  I  may  add  that  I  neither  ask  nor  desire  any 
higher  office  than  the  office  of  stripping  and  exposing  in  all  their 
horrid  and  naked  deformity,  and  lashing  with  the  relentless  scourge 
of  truth,  these  trimming,  time-serving,  pot-house  politicians,  whether 
of  high  or  low  degree,  called  Liberal  Catholics,  who  would  not 
only  barter  their  own  birthright,  but  that  of  their  children,  and 
their  children's  children,  to  the  end  of  time  for  a  dirty  mess  of  po- 
litical pottage. 


CHAPTEK  XVII. 

MR.  HENRY  GEORGE  AND  REV.  DR.  MCGLYNN  ON  THE  SAME  PLATFORM. 

IN  the  New  York  Freeman's  Journal  of  July  15,  1882,  was 
copied  from  the  New  Tork  Sun  a  synopsis  of  a  speech  delivered 
by  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn,  of  St.  Stephen's  Church,  on  the  occasion 
of  the  then  recent  Davitt  reception,  which  runs  as  follows  : 

The  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn,  of  St.  Stephen's  Church,  took  the  stand 
after  Mr.  Swinton  Dr.  McGlynn  addressed  the  throng  as  "  Ladies 
and  Gentlemen,"  adding  that  he  presumed  that  there  must  be  work- 
ing-women among  them.  He  was  glad  to  join  in  bidding  Godspeed 
to  Michael  Davitt.  He  would  make  no  apologies  for  being  there,  in 
spite  of  the  length  of  his  coat  and  his  sacerdotal  countenance.  If 
anybody  asked  what  the  priest  was  doing  there,  anyhow,  he  would 
say  that,  being  a  priest,  he  did  not  lose  his  character  as  a  man. 
[Applause.]  A  good  priest  ought  to  be  a  good  man,  and  a  great 
man.  [Applause.]  No  cause  could  be  worthy  of  the  applause 
and  sacrifices  of  men  unless  it  was  the  cause  of  universal  man. 
He  was  not  ashamed  to  say  he  did  not  set  up  for  a  bloated  aris- 
tocrat ;  and  he  would  say,  as  there  were  enough  there  to  keep  the 
secret,  that  he  was  not  much  of  a  lover  of  bloated  aristocrats.  The 
fact  that  he  was  a  priest  was  an  additional  reason  why  he  should  be 
there.  The  cause  of  suffering,  martyred  poor  in  Ireland  was  the 
cause  of  true  religion.  If  there  seemed  to  be  a  divorce  between  the 
Church  and  the  masses,  it  was  not  the  fault  of  the  masses.  Perhaps 
it  would  be  better  for  the  clergy  to  come  a  little  oftener  out  of  their 
pulpits  and  come  a  little  nearer  to  the  people  to  discover  the  cause 
of  their  complaint,  and,  if  possible,  to  apply  the  remedy.  [Ap- 
plause long  continued.]  Christ  himself  was  but  an  evicted  peasant. 


Mr.  Henry  George  and  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn.  121 

He  had  complained  that,  though  the  foxes  had  holes,  and  the  birds 
of  the  air  nests,  the  Son  of  Man  had  not  where  to  lay  His  head. 
Christ  had  come  to  teach  the  poorest  man  that  He  was  all  of  a  man, 
and  the  taskmaker  that  he,  too,  was  only  a  man,  bound  to  the  duties 
of  common  humanity. 

As  to  the  land  question,  he  would  say,  first,  that  the  command- 
ment that  bore  upon  that  question  was,  4k  Thou  shalt  not  steal." 
But  who  was  it  that  was  doing-  the  stealing?  The  landlords  would 
say  :  "  Do  not  dare  to  touch  the  pig  that  pays  the  rent."  It  would 
be  a  calamity  if  anything  should  befall  the  gentleman  that  pays  the 
rent.  [Laughter.]  The  poor  people  of  Ireland  had  got  to  believe 
that  they  must  pay  the  rent,  even  if,  after  they  had  paid  rent,  they 
had  to  lie  down  and  starve.  But  they  had  now  come  to  believe  that 
they  might  eat  the  pig  themselves  and  throw  the  feet  to  the  landlords. 
[Laughter.]  The  teachings  of  Davitt  and  Parnell  were  rapidly  bring- 
ing the  people  to  a  knowledge  of  their  rights.  Was  it  possible  that 
God  could  see  without  displeasure  the  state  of  affairs  in  Ireland? 
Such  was  not  God's  will,  and  men  were  not  forbidden  to  curse  such 
a  system  of  iniquity.  He  claimed  the  right  of  human  beings  on  this 
earth  to  so  live  that  they  might  prepare  themselves  for  a  life  here- 
after. He  asked  the  blessing  of  God  on  Michael  Davitt  and  such  as 
he  who  were  fighting  the  battle  of  the  people.  He  would  not  have 
Mr.  Davitt  explain  his  gospel,  but  to  preach  it.  We  might  have  the 
same  problem  to  solve  in  this  country,  and  the  sooner  we  solve  it  the 
better.  He  stood  on  the  same  platform  as  Henry  George  and  Bishop 
Nulty,  of  Meath.  [Applause.]  If  he  did  not  feel  that  he  was  stand- 
ing on  the  eternal  platform  of  eternal  truth,  liberty,  and  justice,  he 
would  not  stand  on  that  platform.  As  a  Christian  minister,  he  in- 
voked the  blessing  of  God  upon  Michael  Davitt.  The  truth  needed 
martyrs  like  him. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn  said  that  the  more  Irishmen  the  British 
Government  put  in  jail  the  more  effectual  would  the  Irish  movement 
become.  Ireland  would  never  gain  anything  from  a  sense  of  justice 
in  the  British  Parliament.  The  only  way  was  to  excite  British  fears. 
The  Englishman's  heart  was  in  his  pocket,  and  if  you  attacked  his 
pocket  you  attacked  him  -in  his  most  vital  point.  Dr.  McGlynn  had 
cordially  approved  of  the  u  no-rent"  manifesto  from  the  beginning. 
The  landlords  never  owned  the  lands,  and,  therefore,  no  rent  could 
be  due  them.  The  non-payment  of  rent  was  justifiable  on  military 
principles.  When  a  country  was  in  a  state  of  war  or  siege  it  was 
right  to  refuse  supplies  to  the  enemy.  Ireland  had  been  petitioning 
for  centuries  for  the  eighth  of  a  loaf  to  eat,  and  had  been  turned 
away  by  the  British  Parliament.  He  advised  Ireland  to  take  the 
half  loaf  that  was  now  offered  by  Parliament,  and  after  that  had 
been  digested  to  sing  out  for  the  other  half. 

While  there  are  some  things  contained  in  the  above  synopsis  of 
Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn's  remarks  which  will  challenge  the  approval  of 
every  friend  of  poor,  down-trodden,  and  long-suffering  Ireland,  there 
;irc,  ;it  the  samp  time,  other  things  which  we  cannot  read  without 


122  ''"Poison  Drops"  in  tlie  Federal  Senate. 

alarm,  especially  when  we  remember  that  they  come  as  the  utter- 
ances of  a  talented,  eloquent,  and  influential  priest  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  Among  other  things,  the  reverend  speaker  is 
represented  as  declaring  that  "  he  stood  on  the  same  platform  as 
Henry  George  and  Bishop  Nulty,  of  Meath" 

Now,  while  there  seems  to  be  some  differences  of  opinion  as  to 
the  precise  position  occupied  on  the  land  question  by  the  Bishop 
of  Meath,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  that  of  Mr.  Henry  George, 
unless  he  has  changed  ground  quite  recently.  In  his  work  en- 
titled u  Progress  and  Poverty,"  published  about  two  years  ago, 
he  most  clearly,  explicitly,  and  with  great  force  and  ability  an- 
nounced his  sentiments  on  the  land  question.  And  if  the  views 
and  sentiments  of  Mr.  Henry  George,  as  set  forth  in  this  work, 
constitute  his  platform,  and  the  same  platform  is  endorsed  by 
Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn,  then  we  have  only  to  read  Mr.  George's  said 
work  in  order  to  learn  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn's  position.  Mr.  George, 
in  the  volume  referred  to,  boldly  proclaims  the  doctrine  that  private 
property  in  land  is  unjust,  and  the  five  chapters  of  the  seventh  book 
of  his  work,  as  above  entitled,  are  devoted  to  the  task  of  maintain- 
ing this  proposition.  As  a  sample  of  the  ultra-communistic  doc- 
trines set  forth  in  Mr.  George's  platform,  as  expressed  in  his  work, 
we  here  quote  from  page  305,  where  he  says:  "Though  the 
sovereign  people  of  the  State  of  New  York  consent  to  the  landed 
possessions  of  the  Astors,  the  puniest  infant  that  comes  wailing  into 
the  world  in  the  squalidest  room  of  the  most  miserable  tenement 
house  becomes  at  that  moment  seized  of  an  equal  right  with  the 
millionaires.  And  it  is  robbed  if  the  right  is  denied."  In  a  foot 
note  on  the  same  page  Mr.  George  calls  this  "  a  natural  and  inalien- 
able right  to  the  equal  use  and  enjoyment  of  land."  By  way  of 
supporting  so  startling  a  theory  the  author  asks  what  it  is  that 
"  constitutes  the  rightful  basis  of  property?  What  is  it  that  enables 
a  man  to  justly  say  of  a  thing,  '  It  is  mine?'  From  what  springs 
the  sentiment  which  acknowledges  his  exclusive  right  as  against 
all  the  world?  Is  it  not,  primarily,  the  right  of  a  man  to  himself,  to 
the  use  of  his  own  powers,  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  his 
own  exertions?  Is  it  not  this  individual  right  which  springs  from, 
and  is  testified  to  by,  the  natural  facts  of  individual  organization — 
the  fact  that  each  particular  pair  of  hands  obey  a  particular  brain 
and  are  related  to  a  particular  stomach  ;  the  fact  that  each  man 
is  a  definite,  coherent,  independent  whole — which  alone  justifies 
individual  owership?  As  a  man  belongs  to  himself,  so  his  labor, 
when  put  in  a  concrete  form,  belongs  to  him."  For  this  reason, 


Mr.  Henrv  George  and  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn.  123 

says  Mr.  George:  ''That  which  a  man  makes  or  produces  is  his 
own,  as  against  all  the  world,  to  enjoy  or  to  destroy,  to  use,  to 
exchange,  or  to  give.  *  *  *  *  The  pen  with  which  I  am  writ- 
ing is  justly  mine.  No  other  being  can  rightfully  lay  claim  to  it, 
for  in  me  is  the  title  of  the  producers  who  made  it.  It  has  become 
mine,  because  transferred  to  me  by  the  importer,  who  obtained  the 
exclusive  right  to  it  by  transfer  from  the  manufacturer,  in  whom, 
by  the  same  process  of  purchase,  vested  the  rights  of  those  who 
dug  the  material  from  the  ground  and  shaped  it  into  a  pen.  Thus 
my  exclusive  right  of  ownership  in  the  pen  springs  from  the  natural 
right  of  the  individual  to  the  use  of  his  own  faculties." 

We  propose  now  to  examine  briefly  the  foundation  whereon  Mr. 
George  rests  his  theory  that  there  cannot  justly  be  any  private  prop- 
erty in  land ;  and  we  shall  undertake  the  task  of  showing  that  in 
order  to  be  logical,  and  to  maintain  a  position  in  harmony  with  the 
fundamental  proposition  whereon  rests  his  whole  theory,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  go  still  farther  and  deny  that  there  is  or  can  be  any 
such  thing  as  a  title  to  private  property  vested  in  man,  whether 
such  property  be  land  or  anything  else. 

As  we  have  just  seen.  Mr.  George,  as  the  basis  of  all  property 
rights  in  man,  asserts  the  proposition  that  "man  belongs  to  him- 
self"  and  that  "  therefore  what  he  makes  or  produces,"  and  only 
what  he  makes  or  produces,  "  is  his  own,  as  against  all  the  world, 
to  enjoy  or  destroy,  to  use,  to  exchange,  or  to  give." 

Now,  it  seems  to  us  scarcely  possible  for  any  other  writer  to 
crowd  so  great  a  number  of  such  gigantic  fallacies  into  the  same 
space  as  are  contained  in  the  foregoing  propositions.  In  the  first 
place  we  deny  that  "  man  belongs  to  himself,"  and  in  order  to 
make  good  our  denial  it  is  only  necessary  to  invoke  another  propo- 
sition advanced  by  the  same  learned  author.  For  example  :  On  the 
very  page  where  this  self-ownership  of  man  is  so  triumphantly 
asserted,  it  is  further  maintained  that,  because  of  man's  ownership 
of  himself,  whatever  he  "  makes  or  produces  is  his  own."  If,  then, 
it  is  true  that  the  making  of  a  thing  gives  the  maker  title  to  the  thing 
made,  man  unquestionably  belongs,  not  to  himself—  unless  it  can  be 
shown  that  he  made  himself — but  to  God,  his  creator.  And  upon 
this  palpably  false  proposition  rests  Mr.  George's  whole  theory. 
But  even  if  this  false  proposition  were  true,  and  if  it  were  admitted 
that  man  really  owns  himself,  still,  according  to  Mr.  George's  idea 
as  to  the  mode,  and  the  only  mode,  of  acquiring  title  to  property, 
such  acquisition  would  be  utterly  impossible,  for,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  the  only  original  mode  of  acquiring  title  to  property,  accord- 


124  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

ing  to  Mr.  George,  is  to  make  or  produce  it.  Now  to  make  a  thrng, 
in  its  true  and  proper  sense,  means  to  create  it.  But  man  can 
create  nothing.  Not  so  much  as  one  grain  of  sand.  No,  nor  even 
so  much  as  the  very  smallest  invisible  mote  or  atom  of  matter. 
But  our  author  would  say  :  "  When  I  used  the  word  '  make'  I  did 
not  exactly  mean  to  create,  hence  I  coupled  with  it  the  word 
' produce'"  meaning,  thereby,  simply  changing  the  form  of  some 
material  substance.  Such  a  change,  for  example,  as  the  farmer 
brings  about  when  he  is  instrumental  in  converting  the  earth's  rich 
soil  into  corn,  beans,  and  potatoes,  or  the  lumberman  and  the  me- 
chanic when  they  fell  the  forest  trees  and  convert  them  into  houses, 
or  the  brick  manufacturer  when  he  works  sand  and  clay  into  mortar 
and  moulds  them  into  brick.  This,  we  presume,  is  the  sense  in 
which  Mr.  George  intends  to  be  understood  when  he  uses  the  words 
"  make  or  produce." 

But  here  again  the  learned  author's  logic  murders  itself.  On  page 
302  he  maintains  that  "  no  one  can  be  rightfully  entitled  to  the  own- 
ership of  anything  which  is  not  the  produce  of  his  labor,  or  the  labor 
of  some  one  else  from  whom  the  right  has  passed  to  him."  And 
upon  this  ground  he  over  and  over  again  insists  that  there  cannot 
justly  be  any  such  thing  as  private  property  in  land,  because  no  man 
can  make  or  produce  land.  Now,  who  does  not  know  that  every 
tree  and  herb,  every  grain  of  corn,  and  every  blade  of  grass  that 
grows ;  every  beast,  every  bird,  and  every  insect  is  formed  from, 
and,  in  fact,  constitutes  a  part  of  the  very  substance  and  cream  of 
the  land  ?  Now,  if  a  man  cannot  make  land,  neither  can  he  make 
that  particular  and  most  valuable  ingredient  in  the  land,  which  en- 
ters into  the  growth  and  forms,  as  we  have  just  said,  the  very  sub- 
stance both  of  animal  and  vegetable  matter.  And  if  man  does  not 
and  cannot  own  the  land,  of  which  these  things  are  made,  how  is  it 
possible  for  him  to  own  the  things  themselves  ?  Should  a  thief  take 
a  bar  of  silver  to  which  he  had  no  title,  but  which  belonged  to 
another,  and  melt  and  run  it  into  coin  or  silver  spoons,  no  honest 
iudge  in  the  world  would  say  that  the  mere  fact  of  his  having  ex- 
pended his  skill  and  labor  upon  this  piece  of  stolen  metal  could 
possibly  give  him  a  title  either  to  the  coin  or  the  spoons  into 
which  he  had  manufactured  it.  Neither  does  it  seem  any  more 
possible  to  change  the  rightful  ownership  of  the  soil  by  converting 
it  into  porridge  than  it  does  to  change  the  ownership  of  a  silver  bar 
by  converting  it  into  spoons  with  which  to  eat  the  porridge.  Ac- 
cording to  Mr.  George's  theory,  if  we  understand  it  aright,  the  man 
who,  with  his  hard  and  honestly  earned  money,  purchases  a  field 


Mr.  Henry  George  and  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn.  125 

from  one  who  holds  a  title,  recognized  as  genuine  by  the  solemn 
sanctions  of  his  country's  laws  and  the  general  consent  of  mankind, 
is,  nevertheless,  a  robber  if  he  denies  that  "  the  puniest  infant 
that  comes  wailing  into  the  world  in  the  squalidest  room  of  the  most 
miserable  tenement  house  becomes  at  that  moment  seized  of  an 
equal  right "  with  himself.  Nor  do  the  monstrous  conclusions  of 
this  strange  logic  even  stop  here.  For,  according  to  Mr.  George, 
while  the  man  who,  under  the  solemn  sanctions  of  law  and  with 
the  general  consent  of  mankind,  invests  his  money  in  the  purchase 
of  land  is  a  robber  if  he  claims  anything  by  virtue  of  his  purchase, 
his  neighbor,  on  the  other  hand,  who  neither  invested  a  cent  in  said 
land  nor  inherited  it  from  any  one  who  has,  and  who,  against  the 
protest  of  the  purchaser,  in  violation  of  the  statutes  of  his  country, 
and  in  defiance  of  the  common  judgment  of  mankind,  would,  by 
intrusion,  take  joint  possession  with  such  purchaser,  and  without 
consideration  appropriate  to  his  own  use  the  soil  which  had  been 
so  purchased  and  enriched  by  another,  would  for  so  doing  be  worthy 
of  all  commendation  as  an  honest  and  upright  man  !  Truly,  if  this 
is  not  the  robber's  gospel  we  know  not  what  is. 

It  seems  to  us  that  Mr.  George's  false  conclusions  as  to  what  he 
calls  the  "  injustice  of  private  property  in  land"  are  at  least  partly 
due  to  his  erroneous  ideas  as  to  what  really  constitutes  the  highest 
human  title  to  property  and  the  exact  nature  and  extent  of  such 
title.  The  kind  or  degree  of  title  of  which  he  seems  to  be  speaking 
rests,  as  we  have  seen,  upon  the  false  assumption  that  man  is  the 
absolute  owner  of  himself,  and,  consequently,  that  he  is  the  absolute 
owner  of  whatever  he  makes  or  produces,  (although  he  make  it  out 
of  God  Almighty's  material),  and  that  the  character  of  this  owner- 
ship is  such  as  gives  him  the  right,  not  only  to  use  and  enjoy  as  he 
pleases,  but  even  to  utterly  destroy  the  thing  owned.  Such  a  title 
as  this  we  hold  none  but  God  alone  possesses,  because  it  is  not  man, 
as  claimed  by  Mr.  George,  but  only  God  who  owns  himself;  and, 
consequently,  it  is  <>nl\  God  who  can  rightfully  claim  the  absolute  and 
ultimate  title  to  himself  and  to  the  things  he  has  made,  no  difference 
whether  those  things  be  in  the  shape  of  lands,  or  cattle,  or  of  fruits, 
flowers,  and  fields  of  waving  grain.  Neither  do  we  see  how  it  is 
possible  for  either  Mr.  George  or  his  reverend  follower  to  escape 
these  conclusions  without  either  denying  the  existence  of  God,  who 
made  all  things,  or  else  repudiating  his  own  premises  wherein  it  is 
asserted  as  a  fundamental  proposition  that  he,  and  only  he,  who 
owns  himself  owns  also  that  which  he  has  made. 

If  a  man  belongs  absolutely  to  himself,  then  he  is  responsible  only 


126  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

to  himself  for  his  dealings  with  himself;  and  whether,  on  the  one 
hand,  he  live  the  life  of  a  lazy,  worthless  sot,  and  die  the  horrible 
death  of  the  suicide,  or  whether,  on  the  other,  he  lead  a  sober,  in- 
dustrious, virtuous  life,  and  then  die  a  natural  and  honorable  death — 
in  either  case  he  will  have  but  exercised  what  Mr.  George  would 
call  his  inalienable  right  to  do  as  he  pleases  with  that  which  be- 
longs to  himself. 

This  brings  us  to  a  point  where  it  will  be  in  order  to  define  what 
we  understand  to  be  the  nature  and  extent  of  man's  ownership  in 
property,  whether  it  be  in  the  nature  of  lands  or  of  goods  and  chat- 
tels. 

In  order  to  have  a  clear  idea  of  the  nature  and  limits  of  man's 
title  to  property  we  must  constantly  bear  in  mind  the  fact,  as  already 
suggested,  that  man  did  not  make  himself,  but  that  he  was  made  by 
another,  and,  consequently,  that  he  does  not  belong  to  himself,  but 
that  he  belongs  to  another.  That  his  entire  physical,  mental, 
and  moral  self;  his  body,  with  its  flesh  and  blood,  and  bone 
and  marrow  ;  its  every  muscle,  fibre,  and  atom  of  matter,  from  the 
very  tip  of  his  hair  to  the  end  of  his  little  toe-nail ;  his  soul,  with  its 
will,  memory,  and  understanding;  and,  in  fact,  every  faculty  which 
it  is  possible  for  him  to  use,  either  in  the  acquisition  of  knowledge 
or  the  accumulation  of  worldly  wealth,  are  all  the  absolute  property 
of  his  Creator.  That  the  earth,  the  air,  and  the  ocean,  with  all  their 
teeming  wealth  of  animate  and  inanimate  things,  are  also  the  prop- 
erty of  Him  who  created  them.  Therefore  whatever  title  man  has 
acquired,  or  can  acquire,  to  any  species  of  property,  whether  it  be 
land  or  personal  chattels,  must  of  necessity  be  from  God,  the  only 
true  owner,  and  subject  at  all  times  to  His  supreme  will  and  control. 
That  man  has  a  genuine  but  subordinate  title  to  the  earth  and  the 
ocean,  with  all  their  varied  productions,  is  manifest  not  only  from 
the  testimony  of  natural  reason,  but  also  from  the  words  of  holy 
writ,  for  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  it  is  written  that  God  said  : 
"  Let  us  make  man  to  our  own  image  and  likeness ;  and  let  him 
have  dominion  over  the  fishes  of  the  sea,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air, 
and  the  beasts,  and  the  whole  earth,  and  every  creeping  creature  that 
moveth  upon  the  earth."  Here,  then,  is  the  source  of  man's  title, 
not  only  to  his  personal  goods  and  chattels,  but  to  his  landed  estates 
as  well.  For  it  will  be  observed  from  the  language  just  quoted  that 
man's  "  dominion"  was  not  to  be  limited  to  the  "  fishes  of  the  sea, 
and  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  the  beasts,"  but  was  to  be  extended  to 
41  the  'whole  earth"  as  well  as  to  "'  every  creeping  thing  that  moveth 
upon  the  earth  "  Here,  then,  is  man's  title-deed,  through  which  he 


Mr.  Henry  George  and  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynu.  127 

traces  back  to  his  Lord  and  Maker  his  right  to  property,  both  real 
and  personal. 

It  may  be  that  Mr.  George  denies  the  genuineness  of  our  title- 
deed,  but  we  presume  the  reverend  New  York  convert  to  Mr. 
George's  platform,  with  whom  we  are  partly  dealing,  will  not 
join  in  that  denial. 

We  have  said  that  man's  title  to  property,  both  real  and  personal, 
is  but  a  subordinate  and  qualified  one,  subject  at  all  times  to  the  su- 
perior and  ultimate  title  of  the  Creator,  and  of  this  fact  we  must  not 
lose  sight.  In  order  that  we  may  the  more  certainly  keep  this  fact 
steadily  in  view,  let  us  inquire  a  little  more  closely  into  the  reason 
for  this  limitation  upon  man's  title  to  property.  No  intelligent  being 
has  ever  yet  knowingly  and  designedly  put  into  shape  anything 
without  a  purpose.  And  the  Almighty,  being  infinitely  wise,  has 
neither  made  nor  done  anything  without  an  infinitely  wise  purpose. 
And  being  infinitely  good,  He  has  neither  made  nor  done  anything 
without  an  infinitely  good  purpose.  Hence  we  are  led  to  conclude 
that  when  He  made  the  earth,  the  air,  and  the  ocean,  with  all  their 
elements  of  material  wealth,  He  must  have  made  them  for  an  infi- 
nitely wise  and  an  infinitely  good  purpose.  Consequently,  when  He 
gave  to  man  dominion  over  all  these  things  it  must  have  been 
His  will  that  he  use  them  in  a  manner  to  correspond  with  the 
objects  for  which  they  were  made.  But  what  was  the  Almighty's 
object  in  creating  these  elements  of  worldly  wealth  of  which  we  are 
speaking?  Was  it  not  to  promote  His  own  honor  and  glory,  and  at 
the  same  time  to  supply  man's  proper  physical,  mental,  and  moral 
wants,  and  thereby  to  contribute  to  his  happiness? 

The  gift  by  the  Almighty  to  man  of  dominion  over  the  earthly 
creation  was  of  course  a  gift  in  common,  whereby  every  human 
being  was  allowed  to  draw  from  this  common  and  abundant  her- 
itage, and  appropriate  to  his  own  use  such  articles — not  previously 
appropriated — as  were  suited  to  his  necessities,  tastes,  and  lawful 
desires.  And  when  men  began  this  process  of  individual  appro- 
priation, then  and  there  began  the  origin  and  history  of  private 
property,  without  the  necessity  of  man's  having  to  make  an  article 
as  the  only  test  of  his  rightful  ownership.  The  man  who  first 
found  a  wild  turkey's  nest,  a  swarm  of  bees,  or  a  precious  stone 
upon  unclaimed  land,  did  not  make  either  the  bees,  the  turkey  eggs, 
or  the  precious  stone  ;  and  yet,  if  he  chose  to  have  it  so,  they  be- 
came his  property  by  the  mere  act  of  appropriation.  If  the  learned 
author  of  ' '  Progress  and  Poverty  "  were  to  go  into  a  wild  forest, 
and  cut  the  timber  and  saw  the  lumber  with  which  to  build  him  a 


128  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

house,  he  would  doubtless  say  that  the  house,  when  built,  was  his, 
because  he  made  it.  But  was  not  the  material  his  even  before  he 
built  the  house?  And  yet  he  did  not  make  the  material.  If,  after 
he  had  selected  his  lumber  tree,  and  was  on  the  ground  ready  for 
work,  clearly  indicating  his  purpose — even  before  his  axe  had 
pierced  the  outer  bark — some  later  claimant  had  made  his  appear- 
ance and  objected  to  his  cutting  the  tree,  would  he  not  have  said, 
"  Sir,  this  is  my  tree  !"  But  according  to  Mr.  George's  theory,  by 
what  right  could  he  have  claimed  that  it  was  his  tree  ?  For  surely 
he  had  not  made  the  tree,  any  more  than  he  had  made  the  land 
whereon  the  tree  had  grown.  Hence,  we  claim  that  Mr.  George 
is  in  error  when  he  assumes  that  it  is  impossible  for  man  justly  to 
have  private  property  in  a  thing  which  was  not  made  or  produced 
either  by  himself  or  by  some  other  person,  viz.,  some  other  human 
being,  whose  title  he  holds.  And  it  is  upon  this  erroneous  assump- 
tion that  our  author  denies  the  justice  of  private  property  in  land  ; 
that  is  to  say,  because  man  did  not  make  the  land.  But  if  it  is  true 
that,  by  the  simple  act  of  appropriation,  man  can  become  the  rightful 
owner  of  a  nest  of  turkey  eggs,  a  swarm  of  bees,  a  precious  stone, 
or  a  timber  tree,  which  neither  he  nor  any  human  being  whose  title 
he  claims  ever  made  or  produced,  then  upon  what  principle  can  it 
be  said  that,  by  a  similar  act  of  appropriation,  man  cannot  justly 
acquire  private  property  in  land  not  previously  appropriated  ? 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  man's  title  to  property, 
whether  in  land  or  in  movables,  and  whether  held  in  community  or 
in  severalty,  is  a  qualified  and  limited  title  in  the  nature  of  a  trust, 
coupled  with  an  obligation  to  so  use  such  property  as  to  subserve  the 
end  for  which  it  was  created,  namely  :  the  honor  of  God  and  the 
welfare  of  man.  Therefore,  it  is  not  true,  as  held  by  Mr.  George, 
that  man  holds,  or  can  hold,  even  what  he  calls  his  own  property, 
by  such  an  absolute  title  as  to  give  him  ipso  facto  a  right  to  destroy 
that  property.  To  show,  by  a  simple  illustration,  how  monstrous 
is  the  doctrine  here  asserted  by  our  author,  let  us  suppose  the  case 
of  a  very  wealthy  man,  who  counts  his  money  by  the  millions  of 
dollars.  He  neither  owns  nor  claims  to  own  a  foot  of  land,  and 
his  money  has  all  come  to  him  through  what  Mr.  George  would  call 
just  and  legitimate  channels.  To  make  the  matter  clear,  we  will 
suppose  that  he  has  dug  every  dollar  of  it  with  his  own  pick  and 
shovel  out  of  the  rich  placers  of  California.  No  sooner  has  he 
amassed  this  immense  fortune  than  he  learns  that  a  most  deadly 
plague  has  simultaneously  attacked  the  people  of  New  York,  Bos- 
ton, Philadelphia,  Charleston,  Savannah,  Baltimore,  Cincinnati,  St. 


Mr.  Henry  George  a>>d  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn.  129 

Louis,  Chicago,  Louisville,  New  Orleans,  and  San  Francisco,  and 
is  rapidly  spreading  to  all  the  neighboring  towns  and  cities,  and 
even  into  the  homes  of  the  rural  districts.  He  has  further  learned  that 
one  and  only  one  remedy  has  been  found  for  this  dreadful  destroyer  of 
his  race,  and  that  remedy  is  quinine.  With  the  quickness  of 
thought  a  gigantic  project  is  resolved  upon,  and  in  the  execution  of 
this  project  he  immediately  telegraphs  to  every  druggist  in  the 
United  States,  purchasing,  at  whatever  cost,  all  the  quinine  in  the 
country.  This  quinine  he  causes  to  be  shipped  to  New  York,  and 
there  securely  stored  in  an  iron  warehouse.  Owing  to  this  com- 
plete monopoly  of  the  only  medicine  that  could  cure  the  plague, 
death  is  mowing  down  men,  women,  and  children  by  tens  and  even 
hundreds  of  thousands  per  day.  By  the  use  of  quinine  every  patient 
could  be  cured  ;  without  it  not  one  can  live.  Our  millionaire  is  be- 
sieged with  applications  for  the  precious  drug.  But  all  to  no  pur- 
pose. First  one  thousand,  then  five,  then  ten  thousand  dollars  per 
ounce  are  proffered.  And  while  the  wealthy  ply  him  with  offers  of 
money,  the  poor,  in  the  name  of  God  and  humanity,  beseech  and 
implore,  on  bended  knees  and  with  tearful  eyes,  for  just  enough  med- 
icine to  save  a  perishing  daughter,  a  stricken  son,  a  dying  wife,  or  an 
expiring  mother.  But  no  !  Neither  for  the  love  of  money  nor  in  the 
name  of  sweet  charity  will  he  let  go  so  much  as  one  solitary  atom  of 
his  hoarded  medicine,  and,  finally,  in  the  exercise  of  what  Mr. 
George  claims  to  be  his  undoubted  right  (to  either  "  enjoy  or 
destroy "  his  own  property )  he  causes  this  entire  stock  to  be 
dumped  into  the  ocean,  leaving  millions  of  his  countrymen  to  per- 
ish who  could  and  would  have  been  saved  if  such  a  wretch  as  he 
had  never  been  born.  Yet,  according  to  the  ethics  of  Mr.  Henry 
George's  platform,  this  diabolical  act  of  wholesale  murder  would 
be  but  the  exercise  of  a  man's  right  to  do  as  he  pleases  with  his 
own  property.  As  for  ourselves,  we  plead  guilty  to  such  a  degree 
of  obtuseness  in  our  moral  vision  that  we  cannot  possibly  distinguish 
the  difference  between  the  guilt  of  the  monster  who  would  expend 
his  money  in  the  purchase  of  poison  for  the  wanton  destruction  of 
human  life  and  that  other  monster  who,  when  the  fatal  poison  of  a 
raging  pestilence  was  doing  its  work  of  death,  would  use  his  money 
for  the  purchase  and  destruction  of  the  only  antidote  which  could 
save  the  lives  of  the  infected. 

Or,  take  another  illustration  :  If  a  man  has  a  right  to  do  as  he 
pleases  with  the  property  which  Mr.  George  would  call  his  own, 
because  his  labor  has  earned  it,  then  who  can  censure  the  drunken 
husband  and  father  who,  on  every  Saturday  night,  squanders  his 


130  u  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

week's  wages  for  whiskey,  while  the  wife  of  his  bosom  and  the 
children  of  his  loins  are  left  naked  and  hungry,  to  shiver  with 
cold  and  to  die  of  starvation  ?  And  if  this  theory  of  Mr.  George's, 
which  holds  that  the  lawful  owners  of  personal  property  have  a 
right  to  do  with  it  as  they  please,  is  a  true  one,  it  furnishes  a  com- 
plete justification  for  all  the  outrages  that  were  ever  practised  upon 
poor  suffering  humanity  by  any  and  every  species  of  monopolists — 
except  land  monopolists — from  the  morning  of  creation  down  to  the 
present  moment,  provided,  only,  that  such  monopolists  acquired  their 
wealth  either  by  producing  it  or  else  by  securing  to  themselves  the 
title  of  the  producers.  According  to  this  doctrine,  the  man  of  money 
may  buy  up  all  the  food  within  a  thousand  miles  of  his  plethoric  store- 
houses, and  thus  force  provisions  up  to  starvation  prices,  spreading 
famine,  starvation,  and  death  amongst  the  poor,  and  yet  do  nothing 
but  what  a  man  may  rightfully  do  with  his  own  property. 

The  solemn  truth  is  that  man  does  not,  never  did,  and  never  can, 
own  property  in  that  absolute  sense  in  which  Mr.  George  seems  to 
understand  the  word  "  ownership ."  It  is  only  the  Almighty,  we  re- 
peat, who  does  or  can  own  property  in  that  absolute  sense  ;  and  when 
He  entrusted  man  with  dominion  over  His  property  He  never  author- 
ized him  to  use  it  for  any  purpose  antagonistic  to  the  great  object  for 
which  he  created  it.  When  Dives  refused  to  allow  poor  Lazarus  to 
eat  the  crumbs  that  fell  from  his  table  he  did  exactly  what  Mr.  George 
claims  he  had  a  right  to  do,  because  these  were  the  crumbs  of  Dives, 
and  Mr.  George  says  a  man  has  a  right  to  do  as  he  pleases  with  his 
own  property.  And  yet,  because  Dives,  like  our  New  York  divine, 
chose  to  stand  upon  Mr.  Henry  George's  platform,  the  Scripture  as- 
sures us  that  when  he  died  he  was  buried  in  hell. 

No,  it  is  not  true  that  man  has  a  right  to  use  even  the  productions  of 
his  own  hands  as  he  pleases,  unless  he  should  please  to  use  them  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  great  law  of  justice  and  charity  ;  in  other  words,  un- 
less he  please  to  use  them  for  the  honor  and  the  glory  of  the  Almighty 
Giver  and  the  good  of  man — for  man  simply  holds  property  in  trust, 
and  it  is  only  thus  that  he  can  execute  that  trust.  It  is  true  that 
along  with  this  trust  comes  the  right  to  the  personal  use  of  so  much 
of  the  trust-fund  as  is  proper  to  gratify  the  possessor's  lawful  desires 
and  to  contribute  to  his  individual  legitimate  comfort,  as  well  as  the 
comfort  of  those  depending  upon  him,  but  the  "crumbs"  that  fall 
from  his  table,  namely,  wealth  not  needed  for  other  purposes,  should 
not  be  withheld  from  the  hungry,  the  naked,  and  the  homeless.  He 
is  the  Almighty's  almoner,  and  is,  therefore,  morally  a  criminal  if  he 
wastes  his  Master's  substance  and  leaves  the  poor  to  perish. 


Mr.  Henry  George  and  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn.  131 

We  do  not  say  that  the  rich  man  should  recklessly  distribute  all 
his  surplus  wealth  indiscriminately  amongst  his  needy  neighbors, 
leaving  himself  no  surplus  capital  with  which  to  accumulate  more. 
Not  at  all ;  for  this  would  be  like  turning  a  lot  of  thoughtless,  hun- 
gry children  into  the  buttery,  where  they  would  soon  eat  themselves 
sick  and  waste  more  than  they  would  eat.  But  the  truly  charitable 
man  should  not  fail  to  hold  the  reins  of  prudence  over  his  liberality. 
We  hold  that  every  man  has,  primarily,  a  moral  right  to  the  free  use 
and  enjoyment  of  so  much  property  as  he  can  honestly  acquire,  either 
by  appropriation,  by  labor,  by  inheritance,  by  purchase,  or  by  ex- 
change, whether  in  lands  or  personal  chattels. 

When  we  speak  of  honestly  acquiring  property,  we  mean  acquir- 
ing it  in  such  manner  as  does  not  interfere  with  the  vested  rights  of 
others. 

Enough  has  already  been  said  to  show  that  he  who  would  over- 
turn all  human  title  to  land,  upon  the  ground  that  man  did  not  make 
the-  land,  need  not  be  long  in  rinding  an  equally  plausible  reason 
for  denying  likewise  all  title  to  personal  property.  Because,  as 
already  remarked,  man  did  not  make  the  nut  ten' a  I  which  enters 
into  and  constitutes  the  very  substance  of  all  kinds  of  personal  prop- 
erty. And  if,  as  claimed  by  Mr.  George,  the  man  who,  with  the 
highest  sanction  of  human  law,  enters  upon  and  appropriates  to 
himself  a  piece  of  hitherto  unappropriated  land,  clears  the  dense 
forests,  cuts  away  the  roots,  plows  the  ground,  plants  him  an 
orchard,  builds  him  a  house,  and  digs  him  a  well,  acquires  no  title 
to  the  land  because  he  did  not  make  it,  then  may  it  not,  with  at 
least  equal  justice,  be  contended  that  the  man  who,  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  same  human  law,  digs  down  into  the  bowels  of  the 
earth  and  draws  forth  coal  or  iron,  or  copper  or  silver,  or  gold  or 
precious  stones,  has  no  title  and  can  convey  no  title  to  any  of  these 
things,  because,  forsooth,  he  did  not  make  them?  And  would  not 
the  same  kind  of  logic  serve  equally  well  to  prove  an  industrious, 
thrifty  farmer  to  be  a  heartless  robber,  who  would  deny  to  his 
indolent  neighbors  an  equal  right  with  himself  to  take  and  eat  the 
corn  from  his  crib  and  the  bacon  from  his  meat-house,  because 
these  articles  of  food  were  drawn  from  and  are,  in  fact,  a  part  of 
the  substance  of  the  land  ? 

We  are  fully  aware  that  Mr.  George  does  not  yet  carry  his  doc- 
trines to  the  extent  of  denying  the  justice  of  man's  title  to  personal 
property,  but  what  we  maintain  is,  that  the  logic  of  these  doctrines, 
if  followed  to  its  legitimate  conclusion,  would  of  necessity  lead 
to  that  result.  Let  Mr.  George's  premises  be  generally  accepted 


132  "  Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

and  it  will  not  be  long  before  some  more  logical  communist  than  he, 
building  upon  the  foundation  which  he  has  laid,  will  readily  reach 
the  climax  just  indicated. 

Mr.  George's  communistic  theories  would  be  far  less  dangerous 
in  this  country  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  so  much  has  been  and 
is  daily  being  done  by  the  American  people  to  prepare  the  public 
mind  for  their  favorable  and  logical  acceptance.  When  the  doctrine 
is  boldly  proclaimed  that  every  child  born  into  the  world  may 
demand,  not  simply  as  a  charity  due  to  the  poor,  but  as  a  right 
due  to  all,  that  he  be  educated  at  the  public  expense,  there  can  be 
no  logical  denial  of  the  fact  that  the  general  acceptance  of  such  a 
doctrine  is  the  practical  acceptance  of  a  communism  even  broader 
and  more  sweeping  in  its  grasp  than  that  contended  for  by  the 
author  of  '4  Progress  and  Poverty." 

If,  as  maintained  by  Blackstone,  and  Kent,  and  Wayland,  and 
every  other  standard  author  on  either  law  or  morals,  it  is  the 
natural  duty  of  parents  to  "feed,  to  clothe*  and  to  educate"  their 
own  children  ;  in  other  words,  if  parents  are  under  the  very  same 
obligation  to  supply  their  own  children  with  a  proper  education 
that  they  are  to  supply  them  with  proper  victuals  and  clothes,  is  it 
not  just  as  communistic  to  take  one  man's  money  with  which  to 
educate  the  children  of  another,  when  that  other  is  in  duty  bound 
to  educate  them  himself,  as  it  would  be  to  take  the  same  man's 
money  with  which  to  feed  and  clothe  the  same  children  ? 

"  Communism,"  as  defined  by  Webster,  means  "  the  doctrine  of  a 
community  of  property,  or  the  negation  of  individual  rights  in 
property."  Now,  if  the  man  who  has  earned,  or  otherwise  law- 
fully acquired,  property  has  no  individual  right  thereto  as  against 
his  neighbors  who  desire  to  use  it  for  the  education  of  their  chil- 
dren, why  may  not  these  same  neighbors  with  equal  justice  declare 
that  he  has  no  individual  right  to  the  same  property  against  those 
who  choose  to  take  it  for  the  feeding  and  clothing  of  their  children  ? 
And  if  they  may  rightfully  communize — so  to  speak — his  property 
for  the  feeding  and  clothing  of  their  children,  why  may  they  not 
with  like  justice  "•  communize"  the  same  property  for  the  feeding 
and  clothing  of  themselves  ?  In  fact,  if  it  is  just  and  right  to  force 
the  whole  people  to  put  their  private  property  into  a  common  fund 
in  order  to  supply  the  educational  wants  of  children  which  the  natu- 
ral law  requires  their  fathers  and  mothers  to  supply  at  their  indi- 
vidual expense,  we  can  see  no  logical  reason  why  the  whole  people 
might  not  justly  and  rightfully  be  forced  to  put  their  individual  prop- 
erty into  a  like  common  fund  in  order  to  supply  any  other  want  which 


Mr.  Henry  George  and  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn.  133 

the  natural  law  requires  each  member  of  society  to  supply  for  himself. 
We  are  not  now  denying  the  propriety  or  the  justice  of  levying  a  tax 
to  pay,  to  a  certain  extent,  for  the  education  of  children  whose  par- 
ents are  unable  to  educate  them.  That  is  undoubtedly  justifiable 
upon  the  same  grounds  upon  which  we  would  justify  the  furnishing 
of  both  children  and  parents  with  victuals  and  clothes  at  public 
expense  whenever  their  necessities  were  such  as  to  render  them 
objects  of  public  charity.  But  the  levy  of  a  public-school  tax  for 
the  education  of  all  the  children  in  the  State,  rich  as  well  as  poor, 
rests  upon  no  such  foundation.  The  levy  of  this  communistic  pub- 
lic-school tax  for  the  maintenance  of  schools  instituted  for  all  the 
children  is,  by  the  advocates  of  the  system,  sometimes  likened  to 
the  levy  of  a  public-road  tax,  or  a  tax  for  the  support  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. But  the  cases  are  by  no  means  parallel,  as  a  moment's 
reflection  will  show.  To  construct  or  to  take  care  of  a  public  road 
is  in  no  proper  sense  a  private  duty.  If  it  were,  we  could  no  more 
rightfully  shift  that  private  duty  on  to  the  public  shoulders  than  any 
other  private  duty.  If  the  road  to  be  built  or  repaired,  instead  of 
being  a  public  road,  were  a  private  one  within  the  proprietor's  own 
enclosure,  where  is  there  an  honest  man  whose  sense  of  justice  would 
not  revolt  at  the  idea  of  taxing  the  public  to  pay  for  the  construction 
or  repair  of  such  a  road?  As  for  the  man  whose  domestic  relations 
are  of  so  unsatisfactory  a  character  that  he  is  unable  to  claim  any 
individual  rights  in  the  children  which  he  calls  his,  other  than  such 
as  he  may  properly  accord  to  his  neighbors,  we  can  see  no  injustice 
in  his  demanding  that  those  neighbors  assist  him  in  supplying  such 
children  with  the  means  of  an  education.  But  whoever,  when 
looking  upon  a  child  of  his  household  with  the  faith  and  confidence 
of  one  who  has  never  for  a  moment  distrusted  the  fidelity  of  its 
mother,  can  say  with  unfaltering  faith,  "  This,  indeed,  is  my  child  T 
ought  never,  never,  to  repudiate  the  high,  the  holy,  and  the  God- 
imposed  obligation  of  educating  such  child.  Indeed,  according  to 
our  humble  way  of  thinking,  there  is  no  kind  or  degree  of  com- 
munism so  utterly  revolting  as  that  which,  for  educational  purposes, 
virtually  asserts  a  community  of  title,  not  only  to  the  property,  but 
also  to  the  children  of  the  private  citizen.  Yet,  this,  unfortunately, 
is  the  communism  of  America ;  a  communism  having  for  its  main 
trunk  an  educational  system  the  most  ruinously  expensive  and  the 
most  demoralizing  that  the  world  ever  saw.  A  communism  whose 
poisonous  roots  have  spread  far  and  wide,  and  struck  deep  down 
into  the  soil  of  American  literature,  American  politics,  and,  we  may 
say,  American  religion. 


134  "Poison  Drops"  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

Millions  of  American  children,  of  all  creeds,  classes,  and  condi- 
tions, daily  gather  beneath  the  wide-spreading  branches  and  inhale 
the  poisonous  odors  of  this  deadly  upas.  Tens  of  thousands  of  these 
little  ones  die  annually  from  diseases  contracted  in  its  overcrowded 
and  tainted  atmosphere,  while  hundreds  of  thousands  meet  a  moral 
death  ten  thousand  times  worse  for  themselves,  their  parents,  and 
their  country  than  that  physical  death  which  consigns  its  victims  to 
an  untimely  grave.  These  children,  as  a  rule,  grow  to  manhood 
and  womanhood  without  any  proper  knowledge  of  the  duties  which 
they  owe  to  their  fathers  and  mothers,  to  their  country  or  their  God. 
About  the  only  thing  which  they  are  taught  touching  the  rights  of 
property  is,  that  every  child  born  into  the  world  is  entitled  to  an 
education  at  the  expense  of  the  community,  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  the  very  quintessence  of  the  logic  of  communism.  Under  these 
circumstances,  with  the  whole  educating  power  of  the  country  en- 
listed in  the  work  of  inculcating  into  the  minds  of  American  youth 
both  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  communism,  and  the  whole 
political  power  of  both  State  and  Federal  Governments  backing  the 
movement,  how  long  will  it  be  before  the  morally  depraved  and 
penniless  portion  of  Young  America,  with  the  sword  in  one  hand 
and  the  torch  in  the  other,  will  demand  of  the  wealthy  an  equal 
share  of  their  worldly  goods,  and,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  George, 
will  call  it  "  robbery"  if  their  demand  be  denied? 

And  when  this  anti-parental,  Godless,  and  communistic  training, 
which  so  many  millions  of  American  children  are  now  receiving, 
shall  have  matured  its  legitimate  fruits  of  violence  and  blood  and 
plunder,  whither  shall  the  guilty  authors  and  architects  of  ruin — 
the  uncompromising  friends  and  advocates  of  this  kind  of  training — 
find  protection,  either  for  their  liberty,  their  lives,  or  their  material 
wealth?  Will  they  invoke  the  shield  of  the  law?  Alas  !  they  will 
find,  to  their  bitter  sorrow,  that  those  whom  they  have  taught  to 
despise  parental  authority,  and  to  ignore  both  God  and  His  com- 
mandments, will  respect  no  law  but  that  of  their  own  unbridled 
appetites.  Will  they  rely  for  protection  upon  physical  force  ?  Unfor- 
tunately for  them  the  physical  force  will  be  upon  the  other  side. 
When,  therefore,  the  evil  day  shall  come,  let  not  the  man  of  means — 
who  now  boastfully  pours  out  his  money  like  water  in  order  to  in- 
doctrinate the  rising  generation  in  the  false  and  dangerous  principles 
of  communism — shrink  from  the  logical  results  of  his  own  blind 
folly.  To-day  he  sows  the  wind ;  to-morrow  let  him  prepare  to 
reap  the  whirlwind. 

Mr.  Henry   George   draws   a   frightful  and,   undoubtedly  in  the 


Mr.  Henry  George  and  Rev.  Dr.  McGlynn.  135 

main,  a  very  truthful  picture  of  the  poverty,  misery,  and  degradation 
which  have  been,  and  are  being,  brought  about  by  the  improper  use 
of  large  fortunes,  whereby  the  poor  are  daily  becoming  poorer  and 
the  rich  richer.  This,  however,  is  not  the  necessary  result  of  accu- 
mulated wealth,  but  arises,  first,  from  the  dishonest  and  even  diaboli- 
cal means  resorted  to  for  its  procurement ;  and  next,  from  the  mean, 
sordid,  selfish,  and  criminal  uses  for  which  it  is  employed  by  those 
who  hold  with  Mr.  George  that  they  have  a  right  to  do  as  they 
please  with  their  own  property. 

Great  worldly  wealth,  whether  in  land  or  money,  just  like  great 
Worldly  learning,  like  steam,  electricity,  and  the  printing-press,  is  a 
great  power  either  for  good  or  evil,  depending  mainly  for  its  good 
or  bad  fruits  upon  the  good  or  bad  purposes  for  which  it  is  used, 
and  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  used  depend  chiefly  upon  the  good 
or  bad  qualities  of  the  man  by  whom  it  is  used.  For  the  bad  use 
and  the  consequent  evil  results  to  society  from  each  and  all  of  these 
mighty  engines  of  power,  whether  they  be  in  the  shape  of  worldly 
wealth,  worldly  wisdom,  or  anything  else,  we  know  of  but  one  ef- 
fectual remedy,  and  that  is  to  make  more  just,  more  charitable,  and, 
in  a  word,  more  virtuous  those  who  in  future  are  destined  to  guide 
and  control  them.  To  this  end  every  lover  of  his  country  and  his 
race  should  arouse  himself  to  a  realizing  sense  of  the  great  and 
overshadowing  importance  of  properly  educating  and  training  up 
in  the  paths  of  virtue  those  who  will  soon  have  it  in  their  power 
to  either  lift  the  nations  into  a  loftier  and  purer  atmosphere  of  truth, 
justice,  religion,  humanity,  and  fraternal  love,  or  to  plunge  them  into 
still  deeper,  darker,  and  fouler  depths  of  crime,  misery,  and  hopeless 
ruin.  The  very  first  lesson  we  should  teach  our  children  is,  that 
man  does  not  belong  to  himself  but  to  his  Creator ;  that  he  is  as 
much  the  absolute  property  of  his  Maker  as  is  the  planet  upon  which 
he  lives ;  that  in  the  vast  economy  of  God's  eternity  each  individ- 
ual man  is  of  far  more  value  than  the  mightiest  orb  that  rolls  in 
space  ;  that  his  superior  value  over  that  of  the  material  universe  is  not 
found  in  the  superior  quality  of  the  clay  of  which  his  body  is  formed, 
but  in  his  noble  attributes  of  soul,  which  distinguish  him  as  an  im- 
mortal child  of  God  and  an  heir  to  everlasting  happiness.  He  should 
be  taught  that  worldly  wealth,  like  worldly  wisdom,  is  only  truly 
valuable  in  proportion  as  it  aids  us  in  our  journey  from  this  land  of 
misery,  sin,  sorrow,  and  death  to  our  true  country,  and  that  it  can 
only  so  aid  us  when  used  in  the  manner  which  its  Great  Author  had 
in  view  in  creating  it ;  and  that  unless  properly  used  it  becomes  not 
a  help  but  a  positive  hindrance  to  man's  happiness  both  here  and 


136  "Poison  Drops"  in  tJie  Federal  Senate. 

hereafter.  But  how  is  it  possible  for  our  children  to  learn  in  what 
manner  their  Maker  would  have  them  use  property  unless  they  first 
learn  what  is  that  Maker's  will  as  regards  themselves,  and  the  duties 
which  they  owe  both  to  Him  and  to  their  fellow-man  ?  In  other 
words,  unless  they  learn,  both  in  theory  and  in  practice,  so  far  as 
the  same  may  be  applicable  to  themselves,  the  great  law  of  morality 
and  religion  which  God  has  given  to  man  for  his  government. 

Without  this  knowledge,  which  is  absolutely  essential  to  enable 
them  to  make  a  proper  use  both  of  their  worldly  wisdom  and 
worldly  wealth,  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can  be  anything  else 
than  a  source  of  danger  and  disaster  both  to  themselves  and  to  society. 

He  who,  in  the  midst  of  his  family,  would  place  in  the  hands  of  his 
little  child  a  Colt's  revolver,  both  loaded  and  cocked,  without  first 
teaching  him  how  to  use  and  how  not  to  use  it,  could  only  be  re- 
garded as  either  crazy  or  criminally  foolish  ;  for  he  would  be  imper- 
illing not  only  the  life  of  his  child,  but  that  of  every  one  within  the 
reach  of  his  pistol.  Like  unto  him  is  the  father  who  would  store  the 
mind  of  his  child  with  worldly  knowledge,  or  lavish  upon  him  heaps 
of  worldly  wealth,  without  teaching  him  the  law  which  God  has 
given  him  for  his  guidance  in  the  use  of  that  knowledge  or  that 
wealth.  And  yet  is  not  this  precisely  what  the  great  body  of  Ameri- 
can people,  of  all  parties,  creeds,  and  conditions,  are  doing  to-day,  both 
as  regards  their  worldly  knowledge  and  their  worldly  wealth  ?  Is  it 
not  a  fact  that  the  great  body  of  American  people,  while  engaged,  as 
it  were,  in  a  death  struggle  to  grow  rich  and  to  leave  their  children 
rich,  and  while  expending  about  $100,000,000.00  annually  in  order 
to  cram  the  minds  of  these  children  with  worldly  knowledge,  are 
at  the  same  time  not  only  taking  no  pains  to  instruct  these  little  ones, 
or  to  cause  them  to  be  instructed,  in  the  use  which  they  ought  and 
are  in  conscience  bound  to  make  both  of  their  learning  and  their 
wealth,  but  are  absolutely  closing  every  avenue  through  which  it 
is  possible  for  them  to  receive  such  instruction  ?  To  fathers  and 
mothers  has  the  Almighty  entrusted  the  sacred  duty  of  teaching 
their  little  ones,  or  causing  them  to  be  taught,  the  great  moral  and 
religious  truths  which  should  always  constitute  their  rule  of  action 
in  their  dealings  both  with  God  and  their  fellow-men.  Then  how 
lamentable  is  the  fact  that,  instead  of  discharging  this  most  sacred 
duty,  vast  multitudes  of  parents,  of  all  creeds  and  classes,  seem  vir- 
tually to  have  conspired  against  God,  against  their  children,  and 
against  society  by  denying  to  those  children,  through  the  medium 
of  an  anti  -  parental  and  Godless  education,  that  very  knowledge 
without  which  they  can  neither  be  true  to  themselves,  to  their 
country,  nor  their  God? 


Mr.  Henry  George  and  Rev.  Dr.  McGlyun.  137 

We  sincerely  believe  that  moral  and  religious  training  are  nec- 
essary for  a  child  in  order  that  it  may  know  the  proper  use  to 
make  of  this  world's  goods  and  this  world's  wisdom,  but  we  hold 
that,  amidst  conflicting  creeds  and  opinions  on  religious  questions, 
it  is  not  for  the  public  but  for  the  parental  conscience  to  direct 
and  control,  by  the  aid  of  the  best  lights  before  it,  the  religious 
education  of  the  child.  And  it  is  not  for  the  public  but  the 
parental  purse  to  pay  for  that  education.  We  hold  it  to  be  a  viola- 
tion of  religious  liberty  to  force  a  man  to  pay  for  teaching  a  religion 
against  which  his  conscience  revolts,  as  well  as  it  is  to  force  him  to 
accept  such  teachings  for  his  children.  But  under  our  existing  ed- 
ucational system  moral  and  religious  teachings  are  as  utterly  impos- 
sible, without  doing  violence  to  somebody's  conscience,  as  they 
would  be  in  a  law-established  church,  Hence,  the  language  of 
the  7th  proposition  of  our  platform  (see  ante}  is  so  framed  as  to 
recognize  the  propriety  and  the  liberty  of  imparting  to  children 
moral  and  religious  education  without  cost  to  the  public,  and  upon 
a  basis  objectionable  to  the  conscience  of  none. 

While  we  adhere  to  the  proposition  that  religious  education  is 
essential  both  for  the  welfare  of  the  child  and  the  good  of  the 
State,  yet  we  would  not  have  the  public  to  force  such  educa- 
tion on  any  child  against  the  conscientious  objection  of  its  parents, 
because  it  is  not  the  public  but  the  parent  that  is  the  God-appointed 
guardian  of  the  child  ;  and  hence,  it  is  not  the  public,  but  the  pa- 
rental, conscience  that  must  answer  for  any  neglect  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  so  sacred  a  trust.  Direful  as  may  be  the  result  of  allow- 
ing multitudes  of  children  to  grow  up  in  the  community  with  no 
knowledge  of  God  or  His  holy  law,  yet  it  would  be  infinitely  worse 
to  allow  the  political  State  to  domineer  over  the  consciences  of  its 
citizens.  Moreover,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that,  while  oppressive 
laws  sometimes  make  hypocrites,  they  never  make  men  truly  relig- 
ious. While  we  would  allow  even  the  infidel  to  educate  his  own 
children  in  his  own  way,  for  a  still  stronger  reason  we  would  desire 
that  religionists  of  all  creeds  should  enjoy  a  like  privilege,  for  we 
regard  almost  any  sort  of  religion  which  is  sincerely  professed,  how- 
ever erroneous  in  itself,  as  furnishing  some  sort  of  safeguard  to  so- 
ciety such  as  cannot  be  found  in  the  utter  scepticism  of  the  atheist. 
Moroever,  the  faint  and  almost  imperceptible  glimmerings  of  relig- 
ious truth  which  penetrate  the  dark  caverns  of  the  most  erroneous 
of  creeds,  if  faithfully  followed,  may  serve  to  lead  the  honest 
searchers  for  light  into  the  full  blaze  of  open  day.  Hence  we  can 
see  no  reason  for  any  division  or  even  for  the  least  discord  amongst 


138  ^Poison  Drops'''  in  the  Federal  Senate. 

the  friends  of  educational  liberty  and  reform.  Even  the  confirmed 
atheist,  in  standing  upon  our  platform,  will  find  himself  at  liberty, 
without  molestation  from  man,  to  indulge  his  dark  dreams  of  anni- 
hilation and  despair,  and  to  pour  into  the  startled  ear  of  his  own  child 
the  gloomy  forebodings  which  blacken  and  make  desolate  the  dreary 
landscape  of  his  own  deluded  soul.  But  he  must  leave  to  his 
neighbors  at  least  the  poor  privilege  of  believing  what  he  proclaims 
himself  unable  to  believe,  and  of  pointing  out  to  their  little  ones 
the  path  of  duty  as  the  path  which  leads  to  a  better  land,  where, 
free  from  death,  and  sin,  and  sorrow,  they  may  bask  in  the  bright 
sunshine  of  an  eternal  day. 

We  sincerely  believe,  in  the  very  depths  of  our  soul,  that  the  only 
lasting  and  effective  cure  for  the  crying  wrongs  with  which  greedy 
monopolists,  heartless  tyrants,  and  unprincipled  politicians  are 
scourging  our  country,  and  the  only  preventive  against  the  still 
more  direful  disaster  with  which  we  are  threatened  at  the  hands  ot 
communistic  demagogues,  is  to  be  found  in  a  more  widely  spread 
and  deeper  moral  and  religious  sentiment  among  the  people.  And 
it  is  our  earnest  conviction  that,  in  order  to  implant  this  sentiment 
in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  our  people,  we  require  more  ot  our 
Saviour's  gospel  and  less  of  Mr.  Henry  George's. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 

Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


LD21A-50m-2,'71 
(P2001slO)476 — A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


l-lOOw-7,'40  (6936s) 


YC   15267 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


